Jump to content

Conspiracy theories


TRJ

Recommended Posts

He said: "YOUR RIGHTS, 1A, 2A, ETC... the bill of rights protects those rights from the government TAKING THEM FROM YOU."

So according to you, anyone can take those rights and they only apply to the government? With attitudes like that, no wonder we are losing our 1st Amendment rights.

Rights apply to anyone or they're not rights. Same like the 2nd Amendment apply to anyone and not just militias, so does the 1st amendment. The government use to defend people's 1st Amendment rights but not anymore and is part of the problem.

I think you need to do some reading because most Americans think our 1st amendment rights are under attack. The government doesn't control the media or the flow of information. If is ok for private platforms to censor anyone they don't agree with or "conspiracy theorists", why not conservatives and Christians? The slippery slope I was talking about and it's happening right now. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/world-news/majority-of-americans-believe-first-amendment-rights-under-attack/20/03/https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/19/first-amendment-rights-are-under-attack/https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/27/first-amendment-under-attack-by-liberals/

You’re making conflicting claims. “....rights “from the gov” is completely different than rights “of the gov” - you’re changing and twisting their words.

 

Have you read the 1A? If so can you show me where it says the right prevents private censorship.

 

You keep saying slippery slope as if the gov is trying to limit the 1st amendment. I’m sorry you don’t agree with it’s intent but the 1A only prevents the gov from censoring you and that right is not absolute. You cannot incite violence and then claim it as 1A.

 

Like it or not, social media platforms are privately held companies. They can allow or not allow whatever content they see fit because that is THEIR 1st amendment right. Your rights end where theirs begin. If you don’t like it you can choose to not used their service. Just like you can choose not to use IC if they don’t want to allow conspiracy theories.

 

Lemme ask ya this - Should the wedding cake guy have been forced to support a gay wedding via his cakes? Is it not his 1A right to refuse to endorse something against his beliefs?

 

If you agree that he was within his rights then why isn’t Twitter or FB? The fact that they are bigger and have more money is irrelevant.

 

You say rights apply to all of they are not rights. I completely agree. I have the right to kick you out of my business for your speech and Twitter has the right to remove your tweets. It’s no different. All citizens have the right or none do. If you can’t be banned from social media then you also can’t hold a protest, make signs, preach religion etc etc on public property.

 

FYI - all sides of the aisle are getting “censored”. Right wingers like to pretend they’re the only ones and so do left wingers. Most of the time it has nothing to do with their beliefs and everything to do with their behavior violating the TOS. And the fact that “Americans believe 1A rights are under attack” is also irrelevant since most don’t understand that the 1A doesn’t even apply to social media in the first place.

 

Whether or not it should isn’t the point. It doesn’t under the law therefore it’s not under attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\/\

 

Property rights or unimpeded free speech rights, pick one.

 

You have free speech rights only from the domain of your own property. Even if you support unlimited free speech rights on your own property you still run afoul of property rights. For instance if you're that neighbor that has 1am klan rallyes on your front lawn your neighbors could argue a case that you are damaging their property rights/value. They would most likely be right.

 

Even government property, which should be the domain "of the people", is defacto "government property". You usually must get permitting and be within the limits of free speech agreeable to the government that owns that property. Try exercising your free speech rights on the White House front lawn or the most secure chambers of the Pentagon. Perhaps the best argument for privatizing government property.

 

There is of course this gray area that often lands in the Supreme Court called private places of public accommodation. If you open your doors to the public, often in the practice of commerce there is some limited protection of free speech and anti discrimination that is afforded to the public you are accommodating. But most conservatives I know abhore those decisions when the rights of the patrons trump the rights of the property owners (ie masterpiece cakes Supreme Court case).

 

If you believe free speech rights trump private property rights than you don't believe in the right to private property, simple as that.

 

I find the concept of supposed conservatives arguing such lefty liberal ideas of unfettered free speech quite laughable. The target is always moving to only accommodate what speech is accommodating to their own ideas...

 

Any contradictions could easily be sown up by privatizing public spaces since they really aren't public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I wrote is clear and in response to what you wrote. You read it a dozen times since you don't understand it.

 

What you wrote is not based on any factual content of what the constitution entails.

We agree to disagree. Some people also believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias. It's called the bill of rights for a reason and applies to everyone and not open to interpretation and rights cannot be taken away but unfortunately some people want to give them away and say they only apply to the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What I wrote is clear and in response to what you wrote. You read it a dozen times since you don't understand it.

What you wrote is not based on any factual content of what the constitution entails.

We agree to disagree. Some people also believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias. It's called the bill of rights for a reason and applies to everyone and not open to interpretation and rights cannot be taken away but unfortunately some people want to give them away and say they only apply to the government.

 

 

There's no room for disagreement when you're misinterpreting a fundamental part of the foundation of our Constitution. You're wrong. There's no nuance here or room for your interpretation. If you haven't read it, that's understandable. Perhaps now is a time to go and look it over and educate yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...