Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[Treetop Flyer]

Apropos of nothing whatsoever...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348718045049610241

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[ABMD]

Apropos of nothing whatsoever...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348718045049610241

Seems to be working now.

 

[BigRed389]

Apropos of nothing whatsoever...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348718045049610241

Yes, let’s give an actual legitimate grievance to a group with the single largest collection of folks who are all about the closest thing to military firepower that can be commonly bought in this country.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[HokiePilot]

There's money to be made here and I'm sure someone will offer up their services. I'm sure someone in Thailand would do it.

I'm not so sure. Parler may be able find some offshore host. It will take weeks or months for them to migrate their code from using the AWS protocols to what ever new provider they can find. Who is actually going to do that conversion. Are they going to be able to attract programmers who want to help them?

But the longer term issue is monetization. The ownership of Parler is nebulous. If they are in it for a profit motive, they need to figure out how to make money. Most social networks have done that through advertising. But big companies aren't going to want to advertise next to unmoderated content.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Yes, let’s give an actual legitimate grievance to a group with the single largest collection of folks who are all about the closest thing to military firepower that can be commonly bought in this country.

What could possibly go wrong?

Let’s give a legitimate grievance to people who speak freely. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[SlickAg]

A reminder that it’s not just Republicans, although it appears that Google didn’t disagree with her content, just flagged her account had “unusual activity”. The unusual activity was people responding VERY favorably to what she had to say and trying to find out more. If you think Big Tech isn’t controlling what you see and when you see it...think again.

The lawsuit got tossed but if it had showed up in front of another judge, who knows. Bottom line: there’s legal precedent for a company to be able to censor any piece of information they want. (Yes, IKE, censor. Even the article calls it that.). The question is whether or not the American people think this is acceptable going forward.

Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million (Published 2019)

The candidate claims Google shut down her ad account after the first debate in June, preventing her from capitalizing on new interest.

www.google.com

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[snake020]

They broke the law, they should be prosecuted, just the same as other people caught breaking and entering, destroying public property, etc.

As far as retiree benefits, the precedent of witholding retiree benefits after criminal disloyalty to the United States could be applied here, though I wouldn't venture to say if that will happen. I even think a case for domestic terrorism can- and should- be made, but I have yet to see that charge be suggested publicly. Things are so bizarre these days, it's hard to know what standards will be upheld, which will be ignored, and which will be made up on the spot.

But I'm no expert, and if I were, the average American would know better anyway.

DoD hasn't gone after the list of retired Navy officers that sold out to Fat Leonard, and those crimes were committed on active duty. Highly unlikely there will be an appetite to recall.

As Brett and others have said, there are plenty of existing legal remedies.

 

[IKE]

What is utterly baffling is your (lack of) understanding of the word, and perhaps concept of, censorship. Let's allow the ACLU to weigh in here:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional."

What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union

Here is wikipedia's take:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

Censorship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, no, censorship is NOT just a government action. In the United States, the First Amendment protects us from government censorship in most cases.

It's abso-f***ing-lutely amazing to me that someone whose username potentially stands for "I Know Everything" does not understand the definition of censorship.

While I concede that Wikipedia is the ultimate source of all that is true and good...

The idea of "private institution" censorship is modern, but you're ignoring my point.

You are intentionally conflating government/political censorship or internal private censorship (e.g., a newspaper censoring its own writer) with what's actually happening here, namely social media companies have a right to refuse service and set the rules of their service. It doesn't matter if it's free or how many people use it.

If I erect a blank billboard and tell all my neighbors they can write whatever they want on it, as long as they don't incite riots, that's not censorship. It's just me setting the terms for the use of my property.

By throwing the word censorship around, you're intentionally conflating a hot-button issue for the left (FCC control of private media due to religious pressure groups) with a current issue for the right (social media rules). It's intellectually dishonest and to me, a sign of the cognitive dissonance (as Brett put it) that the Capitol mob folks must close their inner eye to everyday to maintain their beliefs.

 

[IKE]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It's really not funny how much you gents are confusing private entities' right to refuse service with genocide.

 

[Sam I am]

On the contrary, I think it's one of the better ones we've had in quite some time. Like I said earlier, generally respectful even thought it's pretty political, intellectually stimulating, and generating a good and constructive dialogue.

I believe it's actually exactly what 2021 needs.

100% agree...hence using the word splendid. I used shit show since this thing is all over the place. It's been a fun ride thus far, let's keep that vibe going.

 

[SlickAg]

While I concede that Wikipedia is the ultimate source of all that is true and good...

The idea of "private institution" censorship is modern, but you're ignoring my point.

You are intentionally conflating government/political censorship or internal private censorship (e.g., a newspaper censoring its own writer) with what's actually happening here, namely social media companies have a right to refuse service and set the rules of their service. It doesn't matter if it's free or how many people use it.

If I erect a blank billboard and tell all my neighbors they can write whatever they want on it, as long as they don't incite riots, that's not censorship. It's just me setting the terms for the use of my property.

By throwing the word censorship around, you're intentionally conflating a hot-button issue for the left (FCC control of private media due to religious pressure groups) with a current issue for the right (social media rules). It's intellectually dishonest and to me, a sign of the cognitive dissonance (as Brett put it) that the Capitol mob folks must close their inner eye to everyday to maintain their beliefs.

Censorship is not just performed by governments. If Wikipedia isn’t good enough for you, how about the ACLU? They might know a thing or two.

Again, you’re confusing the point that I, and others, are trying to make. Obviously, I understand that these private companies MAY censor. Do I find it to be disingenuous and contrary to that company’s founding principles? Yes. Do I find it to be somewhat duplicitous? Yes.

Imagine if one of your neighbors wrote “IKE is an idiot” on your billboard and you removed it. Did it incite a riot? No. Then how did it violate your initial terms and conditions? “I found it excessively harmful”. Hmm, how convenient. Now you’ve gone from enabler to editor.

You say I’m conflating things. I’ll grant you that some people may think censorship can only be by the government. Clearly, in our modern times, that is simply not the case. You’re certainly allowed to keep your head in the sand and say that these instances and cases aren’t “real”. And that’s your prerogative.

I’d say that nowadays you can make a a pretty convincing argument that the internet is considered “essential”. Why? The government has closed down schools and businesses and told me to stay home. I require internet to educate my children, which is required by law since schools took online “attendance”. I need it to feed my family. I may even need it so I can work to provide for my family since my employment is non-essential so I have to work from home. And all of a sudden these things can be taken away if I run afoul of my ISP because they don’t like the fact that I donated to political candidate x? That I host a website supporting cause y? Section 230 is from the late 90s and the early days of the internet. It’s time for some updates.

 

[IKE]

Censorship is not just performed by governments. If Wikipedia isn’t good enough for you, how about the ACLU? They might know a thing or two.

Again, you’re confusing the point that I, and others, are trying to make. Obviously, I understand that these private companies MAY censor. Do I find it to be disingenuous and contrary to that company’s founding principles? Yes. Do I find it to be somewhat duplicitous? Yes.

Imagine if one of your neighbors wrote “IKE is an idiot” on your billboard and you removed it. Did it incite a riot? No. Then how did it violate your initial terms and conditions? “I found it excessively harmful”. Hmm, how convenient. Now you’ve gone from enabler to editor.

You say I’m conflating things. I’ll grant you that some people may think censorship can only be by the government. Clearly, in our modern times, that is simply not the case. You’re certainly allowed to keep your head in the sand and say that these instances and cases aren’t “real”. And that’s your prerogative.

I’d say that nowadays you can make a a pretty convincing argument that the internet is considered “essential”. Why? The government has closed down schools and businesses and told me to stay home. I require internet to educate my children, which is required by law since schools took online “attendance”. I need it to feed my family. I may even need it so I can work to provide for my family since my employment is non-essential so I have to work from home. And all of a sudden these things can be taken away if I run afoul of my ISP because they don’t like the fact that I donated to political candidate x? That I host a website supporting cause y? Section 230 is from the late 90s and the early days of the internet. It’s time for some updates.

Now I have to show my cards. I too am an extremist (in views, not actions), but for Capitalism (no, not Libertarianism).

Nationalism of any industry is wrong, no matter how much (full-on vs. regulated-to-death). It doesn't matter how "essential" it is. Somebody built it; somebody or some group owns it; it's private property. But again, what's interesting is the voracity of your argument, and I know it wouldn't be so aggressive if it were the other side's use of an "essential resource" being "censored."

 

[SlickAg]

I agree with IKE, social media is not the gov't. If you've agreed to use any social media platform and they disagree with how you're using it, they can absolutely suppress your right & ability to use it. Similarly, while the gov't can't lock you up for standing on the street corner ( or using social media) and saying whatever comes to mind because of the first amendment, you're employer can certainly fire you for it. That's a clean clean termination even in the eyes of the Dept. of Labor.

They cannot just “suppress” my right to use it.

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

This is why Twitter couldn’t say “we don’t agree with President Trump’s viewpoints so we took this opportunity to deplatform him” even though it’s perfectly obvious that’s what’s happening. So they said his tweets were “inciting violence”. If they removed his content because they just didn’t agree with it, they would be engaged in editorial conduct and they’d lose their Section 230 protection.

If I went onto Facebook and said the sky is purple, they couldn’t remove that post or put me in fb jail. It’s not true, it could be considered a lie, but it doesn’t fall under one of those categories of speech. How are they able to block news stories they don’t like, such as the New York Post story on Hunter Biden? It’s “otherwise objectionable” because it uses hacked or stolen material. Now, it didn’t really, but it won in the court of public opinion and the NY Post probably couldn’t get a judge to grant an emergency injunction to allow the story to circulate.

So do I think they were acting in good faith? Absolutely not. Is that hard to prove in a court of law? Clearly.

 

[taxi1]

That’s the best you could come up with Professor? You‘re reply is that the idiots that acted like idiots didn’t tweet telling their fellow idiots to stop being idiots.

Man, watch one football game, and your post is buried 20 pages back.

Question for you, did Trump have an obligation to tell his supporters to stand down from their assault on the capitol? Under his responsibilities as POTUS to protect the United States?

 

[SlickAg]

Now I have to show my cards. I too am an extremist (in views, not actions), but for Capitalism (no, not Libertarianism).

Nationalism of any industry is wrong, no matter how much (full-on vs. regulated-to-death). It doesn't matter how "essential" it is. Somebody built it; somebody or some group owns it; it's private property. But again, what's interesting is the voracity of your argument, and I know it wouldn't be so aggressive if it were the other side's use of an "essential resource" being "censored."

What exactly am I eating again, what does that have to do with this thread?

The nationalization of industry ship has sailed. Exhibit A? Defense Production Act. Exhibit B? Agricultural subsidies. Exhibit C? The First and Second Banks of the United States. The list goes on. I understand your viewpoint, and I know you understand that stand-alone economic theories always sound good on paper, but in the real world not so much. In practice, you usually have to blend traits from two or more economic systems or theories to make it a viable thing for a country to operate under.

So although I’m morally opposed to it, I realize that some form of censorship is probably going to occur. In fact, I have willingly agreed to allow the government to suppress certain speech in which I would otherwise be allowed to engage. And that’s fine. However, just because you can suppress speech doesn’t mean you should. And it is clearly open season on conservatives right now across the media spectrum. And that should scare us all. Because “dissenting” voices are suppressed in countries like North Korea, China, East Germany, and the USSR. It shouldn’t be happening here.