Current Events > Trump's Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
#51	Post #51 was unavailable or deleted.
hockeybub89 07/12/18 5:01:10 PM #52:	shockthemonkey posted... Weve hit the point where corporations have more rights to speech than people. Great. Hey man, restricting free speech is free speech! --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:904962782] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote>Weve hit the point where corporations have more rights to speech than people. Great.</quote> Hey man, restricting free speech is free speech!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 07/12/18 5:01:34 PM #53:	CableZL posted... darkjedilink posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... This is old news. Fair next. It's why Godaddy was able to shut down Richard Spencer's site. This. Godaddy isn't an ISP It's funny how DJL ignorantly quoted PC who had the decency to admit his mistake <cite>BWLurker posted [p:904962803] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>This is old news. Fair next. It's why Godaddy was able to shut down Richard Spencer's site.</quote> This.</quote> Godaddy isn't an ISP</quote> It's funny how DJL ignorantly quoted PC who had the decency to admit his mistake</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
frozenshock 07/12/18 5:01:46 PM #54:	hockeybub89 posted... shockthemonkey posted... Weve hit the point where corporations have more rights to speech than people. Great. Hey man, restricting free speech is free speech! But is it free speech to restrict the restriction of free speech? Or is that communism? --- I don't hate people, people hate me. <cite>frozenshock posted [p:904962823] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote>Weve hit the point where corporations have more rights to speech than people. Great.</quote> Hey man, restricting free speech is free speech!</quote> But is it free speech to restrict the restriction of free speech? Or is that communism?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rexdragon125 07/12/18 5:15:00 PM #55:	https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/fcc-limits-reviews-of-customer-complaints-claims-that-nothing-is-changing/ Let's just bow down to our telecom oligarchs <cite>Rexdragon125 posted [p:904963627] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/fcc-limits-reviews-of-customer-complaints-claims-that-nothing-is-changing/ Let's just bow down to our telecom oligarchs</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 07/12/18 5:18:11 PM #56:	CableZL posted... This is what happens when you don't understand how shit works. ISPs don't have editorial control over internet content. An ISP is more accurately a pathway to the internet content you view. He knows how it works he just says this shit cause there's a check for him in the mail if he does. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:904963825] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>This is what happens when you don't understand how shit works. ISPs don't have editorial control over internet content. An ISP is more accurately a pathway to the internet content you view.</quote> He knows how it works he just says this shit cause there's a check for him in the mail if he does.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time 07/12/18 5:20:14 PM #57:	In the future there will be a conservativenet and a liberalnet to further spread the civil discourse between the two --- http://karma.hardcore-tm.com - GameFAQs Karma Calculator. <cite>Time posted [p:904963959] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>In the future there will be a conservativenet and a liberalnet to further spread the civil discourse between the two</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 07/12/18 5:21:54 PM #58:	Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:904964070] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shuto-uke 07/12/18 5:22:31 PM #59:	Tmaster148 posted... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/ President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content. Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.) While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal. To the bunch of racists who voted for him: Enjoy your MAGA!!!! I can't wait until all you MAGA hat wearing people get frustrated because you can't access your favorite hentai or loli website to deed or clop to. KARMA IS A BITCH! <cite>Shuto-uke posted [p:904964115] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/ <quote>President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content. Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.) While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.</quote></quote> To the bunch of racists who voted for him: Enjoy your MAGA!!!! I can't wait until all you MAGA hat wearing people get frustrated because you can't access your favorite hentai or loli website to deed or clop to. KARMA IS A BITCH!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
frozenshock 07/12/18 5:24:14 PM #60:	Shuto-uke posted... To the bunch of racists who voted for him: Enjoy your MAGA!!!! I can't wait until all you MAGA hat wearing people get frustrated because you can't access your favorite hentai or loli website to deed or clop to. KARMA IS A BITCH! Meh, I don't think they're going to block that. They're just gonna block their competitors' websites. And the websites of politicians want stricter net neutrality laws. --- I don't hate people, people hate me. <cite>frozenshock posted [p:904964224] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Shuto-uke posted...</cite> <quote> To the bunch of racists who voted for him: Enjoy your MAGA!!!! I can't wait until all you MAGA hat wearing people get frustrated because you can't access your favorite hentai or loli website to deed or clop to. KARMA IS A BITCH!</quote> Meh, I don't think they're going to block that. They're just gonna block their competitors' websites. And the websites of politicians want stricter net neutrality laws.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 07/12/18 5:25:47 PM #61:	While this is definitely a controversial issue, it is by no means a slam dunk "lol what a radical political position " issue. Seriously, there's some legitimately shit-tier dirt digging going on right now and it makes Democrats look silly and petty. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:904964334] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>While this is definitely a controversial issue, it is by no means a slam dunk "lol what a radical political position " issue. Seriously, there's some legitimately shit-tier dirt digging going on right now and it makes Democrats look silly and petty.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LightHawKnight 07/12/18 5:29:11 PM #62:	DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite. --- The Official Odin of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board. "You know how confusing the whole good-evil concept is for me." <cite>LightHawKnight posted [p:904964515] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 07/12/18 5:30:02 PM #63:	DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter? --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:904964571] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 07/12/18 5:32:53 PM #64:	Tyranthraxus posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter? Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is <cite>BWLurker posted [p:904964739] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter?</quote> Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#65	Post #65 was unavailable or deleted.
DifferentialEquation 07/12/18 5:35:12 PM #66:	LightHawKnight posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite. I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:904964874] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>LightHawKnight posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite.</quote> I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 07/12/18 5:35:50 PM #67:	Tyranthraxus posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter? No. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:904964915] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter?</quote> No.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 07/12/18 5:45:20 PM #68:	BWLurker posted... Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is The door is the entrance / exit to GameFAQs. It's not the driveway outside of it. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:904965454] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>BWLurker posted...</cite> <quote>Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is </quote> The door is the entrance / exit to GameFAQs. It's not the driveway outside of it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChiefSosa 07/12/18 5:54:13 PM #69:	what the actual fuck? <cite>ChiefSosa posted [p:904965940] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>what the actual fuck?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 07/12/18 8:01:29 PM #70:	DifferentialEquation posted... LightHawKnight posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite. I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that. And if an ISP is not responsible for content being hosted on the web then they should have no "inherent right" to block people from going to it either. Stop fucking shitposting. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:904972861] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LightHawKnight posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite.</quote> I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that.</quote> And if an ISP is not responsible for content being hosted on the web then they should have no "inherent right" to block people from going to it either. Stop fucking shitposting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
E32005 07/12/18 8:05:31 PM #71:	DE is a gimmick, stop arguing with him. --- https://i.imgtc.com/IR4XrBA.gif https://i.imgtc.com/7X1rBRv.gif <cite>E32005 posted [p:904973066] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>DE is a gimmick, stop arguing with him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 8:08:00 PM #72:	Tyranthraxus posted... You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories. That's literally what protests are all about. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904973213] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories.</quote> That's literally what protests are all about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 8:10:09 PM #73:	BWLurker posted... Tyranthraxus posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter? Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is You realize that this literally backs up what Kavanaugh says, right? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904973320] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>BWLurker posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter?</quote> Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is </quote> You realize that this literally backs up what Kavanaugh says, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 07/12/18 8:12:08 PM #74:	Bio1590 posted... DifferentialEquation posted... LightHawKnight posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite. I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that. And if an ISP is not responsible for content being hosted on the web then they should have no "inherent right" to block people from going to it either. Stop fucking shitposting. You think you're entitled to have private businesses run their operation in the way that you want. You're the shitposter. You'd absolutely be fucking loving it an ISP blocked access to the NRA's or Ben Shapiro's website. Don't pretend otherwise. Where as I might not personally like it, but I can accept they have the right to do so. Your'e a massive hypocrite. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:904973433] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LightHawKnight posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite.</quote> I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that.</quote> And if an ISP is not responsible for content being hosted on the web then they should have no "inherent right" to block people from going to it either. Stop fucking shitposting.</quote> You think you're entitled to have private businesses run their operation in the way that you want. You're the shitposter. You'd absolutely be fucking loving it an ISP blocked access to the NRA's or Ben Shapiro's website. Don't pretend otherwise. Where as I might not personally like it, but I can accept they have the right to do so. Your'e a massive hypocrite.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 07/12/18 8:12:48 PM #75:	darkjedilink posted... BWLurker posted... Tyranthraxus posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter? Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is You realize that this literally backs up what Kavanaugh says, right? There's a bit of a distinction which I think is important here. It's not the companies right to do so, it just simply wouldn't infringe on any existing rights. <cite>BWLurker posted [p:904973478] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BWLurker posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> Does a private company have a duty to allow Trump to connect to Twitter?</quote> Nope. Trump supporters rarely understand what the right to free speech actually is </quote> You realize that this literally backs up what Kavanaugh says, right?</quote> There's a bit of a distinction which I think is important here. It's not the companies right to do so, it just simply wouldn't infringe on any existing rights.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 07/12/18 8:12:48 PM #76:	darkjedilink posted... Tyranthraxus posted... You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories. That's literally what protests are all about. The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech? --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:904973479] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories.</quote> That's literally what protests are all about.</quote> The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 8:13:51 PM #77:	Webmaster4531 posted... darkjedilink posted... Tyranthraxus posted... You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories. That's literally what protests are all about. The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech? Every protest of the KKK is to block free speech. Are you being dense on purpose, or what? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904973531] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories.</quote> That's literally what protests are all about.</quote> The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech?</quote> Every protest of the KKK is to block free speech. Are you being dense on purpose, or what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 07/12/18 8:33:05 PM #78:	darkjedilink posted... Webmaster4531 posted... darkjedilink posted... Tyranthraxus posted... You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories. That's literally what protests are all about. The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech? Every protest of the KKK is to block free speech. Are you being dense on purpose, or what? The fuck, this topic has nothing to do with the KKK. Edit: I was just reading the Antifa protests topic. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:904974452] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories.</quote> That's literally what protests are all about.</quote> The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech?</quote> Every protest of the KKK is to block free speech. Are you being dense on purpose, or what?</quote> The fuck, this topic has nothing to do with the KKK. Edit: I was just reading the Antifa protests topic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 8:34:07 PM #79:	Webmaster4531 posted... darkjedilink posted... Webmaster4531 posted... darkjedilink posted... Tyranthraxus posted... You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories. That's literally what protests are all about. The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech? Every protest of the KKK is to block free speech. Are you being dense on purpose, or what? You said "what protests" not "this protest" or "what antifa protests". Even if you meant this protest, ICE and Police are government entities. And they don't arrest people for protesting, unless the protesters break the law. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904974505] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Webmaster4531 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>You have a first amendment right to block speech. That is a fucking impressive mental Olympic championship quality performance all categories.</quote> That's literally what protests are all about.</quote> The Boston Tea Party was to block free speech?</quote> Every protest of the KKK is to block free speech. Are you being dense on purpose, or what?</quote> You said "what protests" not "this protest" or "what antifa protests". Even if you meant this protest, ICE and Police are government entities.</quote> And they don't arrest people for protesting, unless the protesters break the law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 07/12/18 8:52:28 PM #80:	DifferentialEquation posted... Bio1590 posted... DifferentialEquation posted... LightHawKnight posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Ray_Dorset posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence. What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be? I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access. You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite. I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that. And if an ISP is not responsible for content being hosted on the web then they should have no "inherent right" to block people from going to it either. Stop fucking shitposting. You think you're entitled to have private businesses run their operation in the way that you want. You're the shitposter. You'd absolutely be fucking loving it an ISP blocked access to the NRA's or Ben Shapiro's website. Don't pretend otherwise. Where as I might not personally like it, but I can accept they have the right to do so. Your'e a massive hypocrite. Whatever you wanna believe there DE. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:904975551] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LightHawKnight posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ray_Dorset posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Fair, next. The ISPs are private companies. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government interference of free speech. Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. That reasoning only applies when universities forbid conservative speakers from coming on campus or even when public universities give the antifa mobs free reign to shut them down with their violence.</quote> What would your reaction to Comcast blocking Breitbart be?</quote> I don't go to Breitbart and Comcast is not my ISP. If both of those things were true, then I would either accept it or find another ISP that allowed access to Breitbart. Either way, I wouldn't think that just because a company is doing something I don't like that the government should regulate them to do what I want. I don't have some inherent right to access a particular website and it's not a private company's to duty to ensure that I have such access.</quote> You act as if you have an option with ISPs. ISPs have a regional monopoly. You are screwed unless you like satellite.</quote> I guess I'm shit out of luck then. It still doesn't change the fact that I have no inherent right to access a particular website via a private ISP. If there was government option, then I would agree that you should be able to access any sites you want through that.</quote> And if an ISP is not responsible for content being hosted on the web then they should have no "inherent right" to block people from going to it either. Stop fucking shitposting.</quote> You think you're entitled to have private businesses run their operation in the way that you want. You're the shitposter. You'd absolutely be fucking loving it an ISP blocked access to the NRA's or Ben Shapiro's website. Don't pretend otherwise. Where as I might not personally like it, but I can accept they have the right to do so. Your'e a massive hypocrite.</quote> Whatever you wanna believe there DE.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mustachedmystic 07/12/18 8:56:55 PM #81:	Would you be ok with it if your phone company told you that you cannot call/text people they don't like? --- Guns; freedom you can hold in your hand. Sampson, Terrordactyl <cite>mustachedmystic posted [p:904975795] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>Would you be ok with it if your phone company told you that you cannot call/text people they don't like?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 07/12/18 9:16:38 PM #82:	Also I like how we're at the point where being anti-NRA is now being anti-firearm. As if there aren't millions of firearm owners who aren't part of the NRA. As if there aren't firearm owners speaking out against the NRA. Insanity. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:904976832] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>Also I like how we're at the point where being anti-NRA is now being anti-firearm. As if there aren't millions of firearm owners who aren't part of the NRA. As if there aren't firearm owners speaking out against the NRA. Insanity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuia 07/12/18 9:19:18 PM #83:	He's not wrong --- "You will pay dearly for your futile resistance!" <cite>SageHarpuia posted [p:904976965] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>He's not wrong</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 07/12/18 9:21:31 PM #84:	I don't think he's necessarily wrong (I wouldn't rule that way if I was a judge), but that's a great reason to make the internet a public utility --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:904977097] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>I don't think he's necessarily wrong (I wouldn't rule that way if I was a judge), but that's a great reason to make the internet a public utility</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 9:23:54 PM #85:	Damn_Underscore posted... I don't think he's necessarily wrong (I wouldn't rule that way if I was a judge), but that's a great reason to make the internet a public utility So, you're saying that, as a Supreme Court justice (meaning it's literally your job to read the Constitution and decide if something is Constitutional or not), you agree that such a thing is Constitutional, but would rule against it anyway? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904977228] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think he's necessarily wrong (I wouldn't rule that way if I was a judge), but that's a great reason to make the internet a public utility</quote> So, you're saying that, as a Supreme Court justice (meaning it's literally your job to read the Constitution and decide if something is Constitutional or not), you agree that such a thing is Constitutional, but would rule against it anyway?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 9:25:18 PM #86:	Bio1590 posted... Also I like how we're at the point where being anti-NRA is now being anti-firearm. As if there aren't millions of firearm owners who aren't part of the NRA. As if there aren't firearm owners speaking out against the NRA. Insanity. While you have a point, the only reason there is that assumption is because the NRA is the only organization fighting for the Second Amendment, and every time the left wants to destroy the Second Amendment, they blame the NRA for it not working. It's literally the NRA's fault the left can't violate the Constitution. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904977320] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>Also I like how we're at the point where being anti-NRA is now being anti-firearm. As if there aren't millions of firearm owners who aren't part of the NRA. As if there aren't firearm owners speaking out against the NRA. Insanity.</quote> While you have a point, the only reason there is that assumption is because the NRA is the only organization fighting for the Second Amendment, and every time the left wants to destroy the Second Amendment, they blame the NRA for it not working. It's literally the NRA's fault the left can't violate the Constitution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 07/12/18 9:25:32 PM #87:	People also have the 1st amendment right to a free internet --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:904977333] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>People also have the 1st amendment right to a free internet</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 9:26:22 PM #88:	Damn_Underscore posted... People also have the 1st amendment right to a free internet They literally don't. The First Amendment merely means that the government can't regulate your worldview. That has nothing to do with a free internet. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904977386] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>People also have the 1st amendment right to a free internet</quote> They literally don't. The First Amendment merely means that the government can't regulate your worldview. That has nothing to do with a free internet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuia 07/12/18 9:26:38 PM #89:	Damn_Underscore posted... People also have the 1st amendment right to a free internet no they don't lol --- "You will pay dearly for your futile resistance!" <cite>SageHarpuia posted [p:904977405] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>People also have the 1st amendment right to a free internet</quote> no they don't lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 07/12/18 9:27:57 PM #90:	Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:904977476] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 9:28:50 PM #91:	Damn_Underscore posted... Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge. Nobody's arguing the First Amendment doesn't apply to the internet. We're arguing that there's literally no way to suggest that it mandates Net Neutrality. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904977528] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge.</quote> Nobody's arguing the First Amendment doesn't apply to the internet. We're arguing that there's literally no way to suggest that it mandates Net Neutrality.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 07/12/18 9:30:13 PM #92:	Damn_Underscore posted... Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge. You're free to express whatever opinions you want online and the government can't punish you for it. That doesn't mean a private ISP should have to make available particular websites through their service. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:904977608] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge.</quote> You're free to express whatever opinions you want online and the government can't punish you for it. That doesn't mean a private ISP should have to make available particular websites through their service.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuia 07/12/18 9:31:01 PM #93:	Unless everyone who owns an access to the internet is obligated to share that connection with you leave the ISPs out of this. --- "You will pay dearly for your futile resistance!" <cite>SageHarpuia posted [p:904977642] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>Unless everyone who owns an access to the internet is obligated to share that connection with you leave the ISPs out of this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 9:31:05 PM #94:	DifferentialEquation posted... Damn_Underscore posted... Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge. You're free to express whatever opinions you want online and the government can't punish you for it. That doesn't mean a private ISP should have to make available particular websites through their service. As a matter of fact, such actions would be "compelled speech," which the First Amendment specifically prohibits. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904977645] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Does the 1st amendment not also apply to the written word? If the internet was around in the 1700s, the 1st amendment would have applied to it. That would be my ruling as a judge.</quote> You're free to express whatever opinions you want online and the government can't punish you for it. That doesn't mean a private ISP should have to make available particular websites through their service.</quote> As a matter of fact, such actions would be "compelled speech," which the First Amendment specifically prohibits.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 07/12/18 9:32:29 PM #95:	I have a hard time believing there are actually people who want ISPs to decide what content they can view over the internet. Like are you guys children who need someone to tell what they can and can't view? --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:904977735] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>I have a hard time believing there are actually people who want ISPs to decide what content they can view over the internet. Like are you guys children who need someone to tell what they can and can't view?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 9:34:57 PM #96:	Tmaster148 posted... I have a hard time believing there are actually people who want ISPs to decide what content they can view over the internet. Like are you guys children who need someone to tell what they can and can't view? Nobody said we "want" it. We merely acknowledge that THERE'S NO LEGAL WAY TO STOP IT, according to the United States Constitution. And, again, the left blocks access to content online all the time via protest. One of the first responses in this topic talked about protests demanding GoDaddy from shutting down websites of white supremacists. So, clearly, you're okay with content being blocked online, as long as it's content you don't like. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904977873] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I have a hard time believing there are actually people who want ISPs to decide what content they can view over the internet. Like are you guys children who need someone to tell what they can and can't view?</quote> Nobody said we "want" it. We merely acknowledge that THERE'S NO LEGAL WAY TO STOP IT, according to the United States Constitution. And, again, the left blocks access to content online all the time via protest. One of the first responses in this topic talked about protests demanding GoDaddy from shutting down websites of white supremacists. So, clearly, you're okay with content being blocked online, as long as it's content you don't like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 07/12/18 9:36:19 PM #97:	Tmaster148 posted... I have a hard time believing there are actually people who want ISPs to decide what content they can view over the internet. Like are you guys children who need someone to tell what they can and can't view? Why can you not get that simply because I don't like something that that doesn't mean I want government interference to prevent? I don't want the ISPs to decide what I can and I cannot view. I think that would suck. However, that doesn't mean I want the government to force them to not do so. I want freedom and liberty for all. That includes freedom and liberty for people to run their private businesses they want which means that, yes, they may choose to do things that I don't like. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:904977944] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I have a hard time believing there are actually people who want ISPs to decide what content they can view over the internet. Like are you guys children who need someone to tell what they can and can't view?</quote> Why can you not get that simply because I don't like something that that doesn't mean I want government interference to prevent? I don't want the ISPs to decide what I can and I cannot view. I think that would suck. However, that doesn't mean I want the government to force them to not do so. I want freedom and liberty for all. That includes freedom and liberty for people to run their private businesses they want which means that, yes, they may choose to do things that I don't like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 07/12/18 9:39:44 PM #98:	Blocking websites (without a good reason) goes against the spirit of free speech. The first amendment didn't invent the idea of free speech. You're being like the SJWs who cry "the 1st amendment only applies to the government!!" --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:904978134] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote>Blocking websites (without a good reason) goes against the spirit of free speech. The first amendment didn't invent the idea of free speech. You're being like the SJWs who cry "the 1st amendment only applies to the government!!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 07/12/18 9:40:14 PM #99:	darkjedilink posted... the NRA is the only organization fighting for the Second Amendment That is absolute bullshit. The NRA is simply the organization that has most successfully seeped into Federal and State politics. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:904978161] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> the NRA is the only organization fighting for the Second Amendment</quote> That is absolute bullshit. The NRA is simply the organization that has most successfully seeped into Federal and State politics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 07/12/18 9:40:38 PM #100:	Damn_Underscore posted... Blocking websites (without a good reason) goes against the spirit of free speech. The first amendment didn't invent the idea of free speech. You're being like the SJWs who cry "the 1st amendment only applies to the government!!" Then nobody should be allowed to take down sites run by white supremacist groups, yeah? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:904978183] in Trump'... [t:76795285]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Blocking websites (without a good reason) goes against the spirit of free speech. The first amendment didn't invent the idea of free speech. You're being like the SJWs who cry "the 1st amendment only applies to the government!!"</quote> Then nobody should be allowed to take down sites run by white supremacist groups, yeah?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Trump's Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Trump's Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites.