JWeinCom said:
Should I just repeat the same thing I said before? Because you keep bringing up the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech, and again neither has anything to do with what you just said. You just spewed out buzzwords that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Just your opinions on what is moral to say or not to say, and I don't really care at all. You then suggested that the government should regulate private enterprises and define what view points they can choose to platform or not platform. THAT is in violation of the First Amendment. If people don't like the restrictions these platforms place, they are free to go somewhere else. If it is not viable for any competing platform to emerge, then that's an anti-trust issue, wholly separate from the First Amendment. And, no you can't speak for everyone on the right. Ffs.
"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!" Let us assume for a second that Donald Trump is not the President, since that actually DOES create pretty severe First Amendment concerns. But lets say he's a private citizen who objects to players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. Why is it wrong for him call for those players to be fired or suspended? |
What are you talking about?
Can you try to help with staying on the subject please? A few posts above one post talked about a right-leaning magazine and some political themes which according to some posters were controversial:
"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists
'If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.''
And I commented how remarkable it is that a totalitarian mindset of cancel culture and censorship has taken hold of the USA, who historically has been so famous for freedom of speech. I didn't mention the First Amendment until you brought it up.
My point wasn't specifically about the First Amendment and I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution, but as it is teached to us here in Europe (up until recent years at least), American children are already from school ingrained to be tolerant about speech. America is always been brought up as the prime example of a society with freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that there's great tolerance to dissenting opinion unlike anywhere else, and how the American culture and spirit of classical liberalism has its roots and protection in the constitution. Law is not just law, law also forms a culture and national spirit.
In light of that background it's shocking as a European to witness the explosion in recent years of this hyper-sensitive atmosphere in so many American public institutions, thought police and witchhunts against people who hold dissenting opinions. I find it shocking that a magazine that opposes "censoring enforced by leftists" is seen as "extreme" and "onesided".