Mr D Unless Dems/media are forced to even acknowledge this happened and likely happened in other mosques they won't have to defend it. It SHOULD scare the hell out of anyone including most muslins. I wish this could be sent to Omar and Tlaib fir their comment.
"A bill before the Texas Senate seeks to prevent social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter from censoring users based on their viewpoints. Supporters say it would protect the free exchange of ideas, but critics say the bill contradicts a federal law that allows social media platforms to regulate their own content. The measure —Senate Bill 2373 by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola — would hold social media platforms accountable for restricting users’ speech based on personal opinions. Hughes said the bill applies to social media platforms that advertise themselves as unbiased but still censor users. The Senate State Affairs Committee unanimously approved the bill last week. (Update: The Texas Senate approved the bill on April 25 in an 18-12 vote. It now heads to the House.) “Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content,” Hughes said in the committee hearing. “Basically if the company represents, ‘We’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.”...."
They chanted "blood and soil," "Jews will not replace us," called people "faggots," dropped N-Bombs, etc. Obviously, they were horribly offensive. However, what was apparently said in that video is at least as offensive and probably more dangerous and closer to the line of being unprotected speech. It should get at least as much condemnation.
I'd take it (even if it would likely get struck down in court), but the committee substitute dramatically watered down the bill. They eliminated the private cause of action, so individual users can't sue. They also expanded the defense and injected a lot of ambiguity and wiggle room in it. I'm not too surprised. Senator Hughes is a very smart guy. Furthermore, he's a real litigator, so he knows how to make sure the language used in a bill will be applied correctly by a court. I can't say that about some of the doofuses who work for the committees and the bill writers. Furthermore, Joan Huffman (chairs the committee) is a bit of a corporate hack, so I'm not surprised that she'd ***** for the social media companies like she whores for the insurance industry.
That was my point all along. Muslim kids being told to sing what they were told to sing will be ignored most likely.
There is at least an interesting twist from the usual as the Govt is attempting to promote/preserve/guarantee/enlarge the scope of speech, instead of restricting it as is usually what gets them in Court with regard to speech. However these companies can themselves argue the very same ideas and principles.
And I'm receptive to the companies' position. The problem is that at some point, social media may end up being deemed a public forum, much like airwaves. If that happens, then it changes the game.
When militia members bother you more than border jumping cartel members who kill innocent people, you might need to get your priorities straight. Just saying.
Are you equally upset about the mammoth rate of rapes? Half of those runners are rapists. You good with that?
MrD Is it the punishment you object to? Protesting that stops construction of what ever they don't like seems more than obnoxious to me but I am not sure it deserves a 10 year sentence
I don't have a problem with any of it. I'm all for freedom of speech, but that freedom ends when you vandalize or disrupt legal activities.
More and more things like this will need to be enacted to protect normal people from violent mobs masquerading as protesters. Of course, things like this can be abused from both sides and police violence and non-accountability is a big issue too. But the law serves the needs of the day and it doesn't encroach on freedom of normal, peaceful behavior.
MrD We agree, vandalizing or disrupting legal construction goes beyond obnoxious. So why did you call the bill passed the," Jail the Obnoxious Protestors Act"?
Cubs Permanently Ban Fan For Life After He Flashed OK Sign On National TV - Same Day They Bring Back Player Suspended For Domestic Violence! So a white dude flashed an ok sign behind a black reporter. The dude may or may not have been playing the circle game but he gets banned for life. But to Cubs owner 's father sent racist anti muslim jokes Read Joe Ricketts' racist, anti-Muslim emails and the TD Ameritrade founder's apology not banned. ??
Who said "Shoot them"? Those tweets strongly suggest it was Trump. Only for those who go to the link and read the article does it become clear, and I quote, "a woman in the audience yelled out. While it was unclear exactly what she said during television coverage of the event, numerous eyewitnesses reported she said, “Shoot them!” And you wonder why people think Vox etc are fake news.
Wow LongestHorn, thanks for providing evidence of more fake news! There were several things in that Vox article that were dishonest. Not just the crowd comment. Apparently they are getting some of their information from the Young Turks who never miss a chance to misrepresent Conservatives.
They can't be jailed for just verbally protesting. They have to engage in disruptive behavior. right? Protestors who just shout stupid stuff and wave stupid signs, while obnoxious won't get jailed.
You are correct. Not all obnoxious protestors can be jailed or sued, but all of those who can be jailed or sued were obnoxious.
As long as new entrants can form new social media outlets, and the barriers to entry aren't too high, self-regulation by the private outlets shouldn't be a problem. If you don't like one, get a bunch of dissatisfied folks together and form another. Anti-trust law could be applied if the barriers to entry become too high and a few outlets are able to shut out all others. With many competing outlets, there will always be some that don't censor at all, or censor in ways you like. With many competing outlets, I can't see them being declared a public forum subject to gov't control and regulation. Doesn't mean power hungry bureaucrats won't try though...
Even conservative men lie when it is important enough. I was having a similar but opposite thought. I was think conservative men should not marry and have children with feminists or progressive women. Find a nice traditional woman. If not in the US, there are many women from countries around the world who still value traditional gender roles.
Even if we look only at sex, the stereotype is that liberal women would be uninhibited and knowledgeable in the bedroom and that conservative women would be prudish and ignorant. I was never some big player who was scoring chicks all over the place, so I just have a modest number of anecdotes However, I've dated both liberal and conservative women, and I've noticed the opposite to be true. Every chick I dated who was an uninhibited freak in the bedroom was conservative. Every chick I dated who was a tepid, stick in the bedroom was liberal. If they ever do boycott us, we won't be missing much, and I would never encourage someone who wanted a wife or family to get with a liberal woman.
I don't know any conservative man that would want to get with a liberal woman. If you're talking about banning sex with the likes of this, then I say "Thank you!"
