The Big Tech March to Silence Free Speech

#401
#401
McDad said:
You're invested in circular reasoning here. Summary of our conversation:
Speech is limited.
Political speech intended to have no limits
Not when overthrowing government
FF overthrew the government.
It wasn't their government
Then who did we declare independce from
Britain ruled over the FFs but it wasn't our government.

None of your spaghetti is sticking to the wall, here.

If the FF intended for political speech to be free but did not intend for it to be free with respect to "our" government, why is freedom of speech not relegated to speech about British rule?
Click to expand...

Pfft. Come on broseph. You're twisting yourself in knots.

Lemme simplify this whole debate: Inciting an insurrection is illegal.

Now you certainly reserve the right of revolution, and you are welcome to ignore the rule of law. However, doing so obviously conveys consequences.

Rebellion and Insurrection, Sedition, and Treason

"The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in a brief passage found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.

Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.

The crimes are easily confused, but if the party wasn't acting on behalf of (or giving aid to) a foreign government they are unlikely to be charged with treason. Calls to rise up against the authority of the government by staging non-violent protests and strikes might be characterized as sedition (if they violated laws relating to these acts), but wouldn't be considered rebellion or insurrection unless the incitement included calls for violent acts such as the destruction of government property or the assault of officers of the state."
 
#404
#404
MontyPython said:
Pfft. Come on broseph. You're twisting yourself in knots.

Lemme simplify this whole debate: Inciting an insurrection is illegal.

Now you certainly reserve the right of revolution, and you are welcome to ignore the rule of law. However, doing so obviously conveys consequences.

Rebellion and Insurrection, Sedition, and Treason

"The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in a brief passage found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.

Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.

The crimes are easily confused, but if the party wasn't acting on behalf of (or giving aid to) a foreign government they are unlikely to be charged with treason. Calls to rise up against the authority of the government by staging non-violent protests and strikes might be characterized as sedition (if they violated laws relating to these acts), but wouldn't be considered rebellion or insurrection unless the incitement included calls for violent acts such as the destruction of government property or the assault of officers of the state."
Click to expand...

The only thing is if you commit treason you need to be on the winning side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and MontyPython
#409
#409
luthervol said:
Political speech can often include things on that list....especially the bottom 4.
Click to expand...
Are you investing much time at freedomforuminstitute.org from where your post originated (without citing)?
Looks like a litany of articles which could help you wade through the bottom 4 on the list.
 
#421
#421
MontyPython said:
Pfft. Come on broseph. You're twisting yourself in knots.

Lemme simplify this whole debate: Inciting an insurrection is illegal.

Now you certainly reserve the right of revolution, and you are welcome to ignore the rule of law. However, doing so obviously conveys consequences.

Rebellion and Insurrection, Sedition, and Treason

"The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in a brief passage found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.

Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.

The crimes are easily confused, but if the party wasn't acting on behalf of (or giving aid to) a foreign government they are unlikely to be charged with treason. Calls to rise up against the authority of the government by staging non-violent protests and strikes might be characterized as sedition (if they violated laws relating to these acts), but wouldn't be considered rebellion or insurrection unless the incitement included calls for violent acts such as the destruction of government property or the assault of officers of the state."
Click to expand...

You wanted to drop this earlier. You probably should've trusted your gut instinct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, ajvol01, AM64 and 1 other person
#423
#423
Parler claims "it's finished"

"Parler, the alternative social media platform favored by the far-right, sued Amazon on Monday in response to being deplatformed, alleging an antitrust violation, breach of contract and interference with the company's business relationships with users.

The complaint asks a federal court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Amazon (AMZN) and calls Amazon Web Services' decision a "death blow" to Parler.

"Without AWS, Parler is finished as it has no way to get online," the complaint said. "And a delay of granting this TRO by even one day could also sound Parler's death knell as President Trump and others move on to other platforms."

unnamed.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#424
#424
hog88 said:
If they went bellyup because of lack of organic customers fine, if they go bellyup due to collusion amongst competitors that is illegal.
Click to expand...
They are going under because they failed to moderate their forum for illegal content, and so their hosting service gave them the boot. It's a question of content, not competition. Amazon had every right to do that.
 
#425
#425
MontyPython said:
Parler claims "it's finished"

"Parler, the alternative social media platform favored by the far-right, sued Amazon on Monday in response to being deplatformed, alleging an antitrust violation, breach of contract and interference with the company's business relationships with users.

The complaint asks a federal court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Amazon (AMZN) and calls Amazon Web Services' decision a "death blow" to Parler.

"Without AWS, Parler is finished as it has no way to get online," the complaint said. "And a delay of granting this TRO by even one day could also sound Parler's death knell as President Trump and others move on to other platforms."

View attachment 338324
Click to expand...
You seem so proud of you oligarchs, I'm happy for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython and AM64
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top