Free Speech Warrior

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think you are making shit up.

Like I said, I don't know if it is a real phenomenon, but I am assuming that is the meaning being used by the people who invented the phrase.

But I've seen GCF get pilloried here for suggesting that one reaps what they sow, so there is obviously some point of contention vis consequences.

GCF blames victims of terroristic violence for their attack. That's what he got pilloried for.

Now that we are all clear that by "consequences of your speech" you mean that people should be beaten in the face with clubs for wearing a MAGA hats, we can all put your statements into the proper context: fucking horseshit.

Who said anything about 'should?'
When you are done hyperventilating about 'terrorists' and 'victim blaming,' and can get up from your fainting couch, I would be happy to have a reasoned discussion.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

R U sure you were answering my quoted sentence? (If I apply that to what I posted to FB, that's insulting.)

Do you think FB is obliged to allow you to post?

Dude, I was running for the U.S. House of Representative. Do you suggest another monopolitic Social Platform I should use?

I've got some shit I want to say to a bunch of people to. Who's going to provide my soap box and megaphone, or do I have to bring that shit from home?

[Speaker to Animals]

Like I said, I don't know if it is a real phenomenon, but I am assuming that is the meaning being used by the people who invented the phrase.

But I've seen GCF get pilloried here for suggesting that one reaps what they sow, so there is obviously some point of contention vis consequences.

GCF blames victims of terroristic violence for their attack. That's what he got pilloried for.

Now that we are all clear that by "consequences of your speech" you mean that people should be beaten in the face with clubs for wearing a MAGA hats, we can all put your statements into the proper context: fucking horseshit.

Who said anything about 'should?'
When you are done hyperventilating about 'terrorists' and 'victim blaming,' and can get up from your fainting couch, I would be happy to have a reasoned discussion.

What you just did there is the opposite of a rational discussion. You got caught in your deceit and instead of admitting the dishonesty, you dishonestly tried to paint the side destroying you as "hyperventilating".

GCF literally blamed a woman for her own violent assault while she stood outside a lecture hall. That is why he got lambasted on this forum.

You came in here stating we do not want consequences for free speech and used that debacle as an example. Therefore, the only logical conclusion one can make is that you find it perfectly reasonable for a federally designated communist terrorist organization to attack people who espouse conservative views or merely attend a lecture said terrorists disagree with.

Those are the "consequences" you defended.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

R U sure you were answering my quoted sentence? (If I apply that to what I posted to FB, that's insulting.)

Do you think FB is obliged to allow you to post?

Again, the question comes down to what Facebook really is.

Is it like a newspaper that publishes whatever they want and refuses to publish stories in a way that harms their political goals?

Or are they like telephone network that simply provides a communications service to all customers?

Because depending upon your answer, they are regulated very differently, and they currently want it both ways, however it suits them best.

I think Facebook is more of a publisher.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

GCF blames victims of terroristic violence for their attack. That's what he got pilloried for.

Now that we are all clear that by "consequences of your speech" you mean that people should be beaten in the face with clubs for wearing a MAGA hats, we can all put your statements into the proper context: fucking horseshit.

Who said anything about 'should?'
When you are done hyperventilating about 'terrorists' and 'victim blaming,' and can get up from your fainting couch, I would be happy to have a reasoned discussion.

What you just did there is the opposite of a rational discussion. You got caught in your deceit and instead of admitting the dishonesty, you dishonestly tried to paint the side destroying you as "hyperventilating".

GCF literally blamed a woman for her own violent assault while she stood outside a lecture hall. That is why he got lambasted on this forum.

You came in here stating we do not want consequences for free speech and used that debacle as an example. Therefore, the only logical conclusion one can make is that you find it perfectly reasonable for a federally designated communist terrorist organization to attack people who espouse conservative views or merely attend a lecture said terrorists disagree with.

Those are the "consequences" you defended.

If that is how you read it.

[Martin Hash]

Explain how it’s different than telephone service.

[Speaker to Animals]

Do you think FB is obliged to allow you to post?

Again, the question comes down to what Facebook really is.

Is it like a newspaper that publishes whatever they want and refuses to publish stories in a way that harms their political goals?

Or are they like telephone network that simply provides a communications service to all customers?

Because depending upon your answer, they are regulated very differently, and they currently want it both ways, however it suits them best.

I think Facebook is more of a publisher.

Then they are liable for the content published on their site. To wit: most of these Soros-funded terror organizations coordinate via Facebook. They advertise on there constantly as well, with their own Facebook groups and everything. If NYT publishes an op-ed calling for political violence to be perpetrated against republicans, and somebody acts upon that call to attack republicans, then guess who is held liable? NYT. That's who.

In particular, the terrorist who tried to assassinate the House republicans at a baseball game was part of a Facebook group that openly called for political violence. They are still operating on Facebook. If Facebook is like a newspaper, then Facebook is crimainally and civilly liable for that. But if the victims of this violence attempt to take them to court, Facebook will argue they are a common carrier and not responsible for the content on their site.

They cannot have it both ways.

[Speaker to Animals]

Who said anything about 'should?'
When you are done hyperventilating about 'terrorists' and 'victim blaming,' and can get up from your fainting couch, I would be happy to have a reasoned discussion.

What you just did there is the opposite of a rational discussion. You got caught in your deceit and instead of admitting the dishonesty, you dishonestly tried to paint the side destroying you as "hyperventilating".

GCF literally blamed a woman for her own violent assault while she stood outside a lecture hall. That is why he got lambasted on this forum.

You came in here stating we do not want consequences for free speech and used that debacle as an example. Therefore, the only logical conclusion one can make is that you find it perfectly reasonable for a federally designated communist terrorist organization to attack people who espouse conservative views or merely attend a lecture said terrorists disagree with.

Those are the "consequences" you defended.

If that is how you read it.

That is the only logical conclusion one can make from your statements, unless you are willing to admit you are mistaken about exactly what GCF got lambasted for on this forum.

[Martin Hash]

Again, the question comes down to what Facebook really is.

Is it like a newspaper that publishes whatever they want and refuses to publish stories in a way that harms their political goals?

Or are they like telephone network that simply provides a communications service to all customers?

Because depending upon your answer, they are regulated very differently, and they currently want it both ways, however it suits them best.

I think Facebook is more of a publisher.

Then they are liable for the content published on their site. To wit: most of these Soros-funded terror organizations coordinate via Facebook. They advertise on there constantly as well, with their own Facebook groups and everything. If NYT publishes an op-ed calling for political violence to be perpetrated against republicans, and somebody acts upon that call to attack republicans, then guess who is held liable? NYT. That's who.

In particular, the terrorist who tried to assassinate the House republicans at a baseball game was part of a Facebook group that openly called for political violence. They are still operating on Facebook. If Facebook is like a newspaper, then Facebook is crimainally and civilly liable for that. But if the victims of this violence attempt to take them to court, Facebook will argue they are a common carrier and not responsible for the content on their site.

They cannot have it both ways.

Unassailable argument.

The Left (The Matriarchy) has TREMENDOUS power otherwise FB would be in court right now.

p.s. And Kavanaugh would be a Supreme Court Justice right now.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Again, the question comes down to what Facebook really is.

Is it like a newspaper that publishes whatever they want and refuses to publish stories in a way that harms their political goals?

Or are they like telephone network that simply provides a communications service to all customers?

Because depending upon your answer, they are regulated very differently, and they currently want it both ways, however it suits them best.

I think Facebook is more of a publisher.

Then they are liable for the content published on their site. To wit: most of these Soros-funded terror organizations coordinate via Facebook. They advertise on there constantly as well, with their own Facebook groups and everything. If NYT publishes an op-ed calling for political violence to be perpetrated against republicans, and somebody acts upon that call to attack republicans, then guess who is held liable? NYT. That's who.

In particular, the terrorist who tried to assassinate the House republicans at a baseball game was part of a Facebook group that openly called for political violence. They are still operating on Facebook. If Facebook is like a newspaper, then Facebook is crimainally and civilly liable for that. But if the victims of this violence attempt to take them to court, Facebook will argue they are a common carrier and not responsible for the content on their site.

They cannot have it both ways.

I agree, conceptually. I haven't gone onto FB in about 8 or 9 years, so I am not familiar with "Soros-funded terror organizations."