Censorship

[aubearcat 2,137]

52 minutes ago, GoAU said:

constitutional rights.  

I’m not sure where social media is enumerated in the constitution.  The riots in the summer were wrong and the riot on 1/6/21 was wrong. However, The President is held to a higher standard than your average Joe/Joan. He delayed in asking them to stop, reportedly never made an effort to contact Vice President Pence, and also referred to the rioters as “patriots” that he loved. It is a different level of wrong. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

 There was ONE event where there was a small sub-segment of the conservative base that went full stupid and YOUR the one trying to paint everyone on the right with that brush.  

I find it completely insane how you don’t see an issue with muzzling constitutional rights.  Not surprising mind you, as all examples of liberalism and socialism end it utter disaster, but insane.  

The ONE event just happened to be an attack on a foundational part of the United States government.  Were there some protests this summer that turned violent?  Absolutely.  But the target and intent matters here too.  Those events started because of verifiable proof of police brutality (see: the Floyd video) and didn't inspire an insurrection.  Last week began because a bunch of dumb asses falsely believe a narrative that the election was stolen and intended to force our government to overturn the results.  Literally had chants of "Kill Mike Pence" as they entered the Capitol.  Sorry dude, they aren't remotely the same thing.

As for Constitutional rights, none have been infringed on.  You should learn what the Constitution actually protects first before spouting off nonsense.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Also, it should be pointed out that countless ties have been shown between elements of law enforcement and various white supremacist/alt-right organizations, un- (not well-) regulated militia, etc. The spike in hate crimes since trump took office is significant and well documented. The conversations among these people that include discussing and planning many more events than just this one are massive in number and reach. The threats of violence levied against those with dissenting opinions are incalculable. There was a semi-successful attempt to raid the Georgia state capitol.

@GoAU, it's wildly inaccurate and ignorant to pretend that this one, massive, unprecedentedly vile and irredeemable act of treason and violence happened in a vacuum. 

And to think that it is all based off the ranting and obvious lies of a known con man. 

[AUDub 11,148]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

An alternative view on the 1st Amendment considerations (a thread):

It's a quandary.

Big flaw about her calling contemporary free speech law bankrupt is that just about every solution will result in the government compelling speech, an absolute non-starter that will have consequences far beyond 45 eating a justified ban from social media. 

[Leftfield 2,598]

Certainly the majority of Republicans and Trump supporters should not be lumped in with those who stormed the Capitol, but the number should also not be minimized. There are a large number of people who supported this and other actions. This was not an isolated event. Have we already forgotten what happened in Michigan? And there is plenty of chatter about more coming (which, by-the-way, is part of the reason Parler was suspended).

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, aubearcat said:

I’m not sure where social media is enumerated in the constitution.  The riots in the summer were wrong and the riot on 1/6/21 was wrong. However, The President is held to a higher standard than your average Joe/Joan. He delayed in asking them to stop, reportedly never made an effort to contact Vice President Pence, and also referred to the rioters as “patriots” that he loved. It is a different level of wrong. 

Social media is not enumerated in the Constitution, and those companies have hid behind the protection of being a “platform” for quite some time.  I am fine with them picking and choosing who they want to let talk, and what news stories to hide based on political opinions - that’s their decision.  It should also be their liability moving forward for lawsuits regarding defamation, liable and slander.  If they are choosing to moderate, let them reap what they sew.  
 

Regarding the “higher standard” you are referring to the same organizations that killed a very relevant story about the Biden family?   Yeah, that sounds about par for the course.  

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Certainly the majority of Republicans and Trump supporters should not be lumped in with those who stormed the Capitol, but the number should also not be minimized. There are a large number of people who supported this and other actions. This was not an isolated event. Have we already forgotten what happened in Michigan? And there is plenty of chatter about more coming (which, by-the-way, is part of the reason Parler was suspended).

How about we compare the numbers of people in those events vs the numbers in the CHAZ / CHOP, BLM, and Defund the Police riots?  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, GoAU said:

Social media is not enumerated in the Constitution, and those companies have hid behind the protection of being a “platform” for quite some time.  I am fine with them picking and choosing who they want to let talk, and what news stories to hide based on political opinions - that’s their decision.  It should also be their liability moving forward for lawsuits regarding defamation, liable and slander.  If they are choosing to moderate, let them reap what they sew.  
 

Regarding the “higher standard” you are referring to the same organizations that killed a very relevant story about the Biden family?   Yeah, that sounds about par for the course.  

This is an odd stance.  If they moderate, you want them subject to lawsuits, but if they literally let anything go including people inciting violence and making literal threats of murder on their platforms, they deserve to keep the Section 230 protections?  

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

The ONE event just happened to be an attack on a foundational part of the United States government.  Were there some protests this summer that turned violent?  Absolutely.  But the target and intent matters here too.  Those events started because of verifiable proof of police brutality (see: the Floyd video) and didn't inspire an insurrection.  Last week began because a bunch of dumb asses falsely believe a narrative that the election was stolen and intended to force our government to overturn the results.  Literally had chants of "Kill Mike Pence" as they entered the Capitol.  Sorry dude, they aren't remotely the same thing.

As for Constitutional rights, none have been infringed on.  You should learn what the Constitution actually protects first before spouting off nonsense.

You will not find me defending the people that stormed the Capital in any way, shape or form.   However, let’s not pretend they were the only ones that went off the rails this year.  
 

I am well aware of what the Constitution protects, thanks.  

[Leftfield 2,598]

Just now, GoAU said:

How about we compare the numbers of people in those events vs the numbers in the CHAZ / CHOP, BLM, and Defund the Police riots?  

If you're talking about the number that were violent, that's fair. I welcome any verifiable numbers you have.

Do you also have an account of the force used against said violent protesters and the percentage that were aressted?

[GoAU 1,600]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

This is an odd stance.  If they moderate, you want them subject to lawsuits, but if they literally let anything go including people inciting violence and making literal threats of murder on their platforms, they deserve to keep the Section 230 protections?  

Nope - actual threats and calls to violence are crimes in and of themselves and should be punished accordingly.  Applying filters and using context that’s not there does not make it a crime. There is not a quote I have seen, when left to stand on its own that shows Trump orchestrated any of the unlawful events - period.  

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If you're talking about the number that were violent, that's fair. I welcome any verifiable numbers you have.

Do you also have an account of the force used against said violent protesters and the percentage that were aressted?

I would think as a percentage, rioters in the Capital were killed at a much higher rate by police.  

[aubearcat 2,137]

Just now, GoAU said:

Social media is not enumerated in the Constitution, and those companies have hid behind the protection of being a “platform” for quite some time.  I am fine with them picking and choosing who they want to let talk, and what news stories to hide based on political opinions - that’s their decision.  It should also be their liability moving forward for lawsuits regarding defamation, liable and slander.  If they are choosing to moderate, let them reap what they sew.  
 

Regarding the “higher standard” you are referring to the same organizations that killed a very relevant story about the Biden family?   Yeah, that sounds about par for the course.  

The Biden stories weren’t promoted or advertised on those platforms. However, if you listen to Blaze, Red Eye Radio, NewsMax, ... etc you get the same thing for less than flattering stories concerning the President. I would submit anyone who gets their “news “ from Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or whatever, needs to rethink their choice of sources. This is a capatilistic decision made by a company in business to make money. If the owner of the social media companies felt it was in their financial best interest to make a different decision concerning the President they would. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

Nope - actual threats and calls to violence are crimes in and of themselves and should be punished accordingly.  Applying filters and using context that’s not there does not make it a crime. There is not a quote I have seen, when left to stand on its own that shows Trump orchestrated any of the unlawful events - period.  

So you do agree they should have the ability to moderate the content on their site.  

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

Just now, GoAU said:

I would think as a percentage, rioters in the Capital were killed at a much higher rate by police.  

One rioter was killed. A rioter that was attempting to breach Congress with unknown intent, but who could easily have been trying to harm them. In no way do I dismiss the violence of last summer, but I agree with others that you are making a false equivalence here.

Rioters also killed one police officer. 

What is the ratio of rioters-to-police officers killed in last summer's protests? Injuries?

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This is an odd stance.  If they moderate, you want them subject to lawsuits, but if they literally let anything go including people inciting violence and making literal threats of murder on their platforms, they deserve to keep the Section 230 protections?  

It's a huge contradiction of thought.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, GoAU said:

You will not find me defending the people that stormed the Capital in any way, shape or form.   However, let’s not pretend they were the only ones that went off the rails this year.  
 

I am well aware of what the Constitution protects, thanks.  

No one's pretending that last years riots didn't happen.  What is being said is that comparing those with a direct attack on our government are completely different animals.

[homersapien 11,373]

CENSORSHIP!!!!

 

Talk-radio owner orders conservative hosts to temper election fraud rhetoric

Paul Farhi

Jan. 11, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EST

 

After months of stoking anger about alleged election fraud, one of America’s largest talk-radio companies has decided on an abrupt change of direction.

Cumulus Media, which employs some of the most popular right-leaning talk-radio hosts in the United States, has told its on-air personalities to stop suggesting that the election was stolen from President Trump — or else face termination.

A Cumulus executive issued the directive on Wednesday, just as Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s election victory and an angry mob of Trump supporters marched on the Capitol, overwhelmed police and briefly occupied the building, terrorizing lawmakers and leading to the deaths of five people.

“We need to help induce national calm NOW,” Brian Philips, executive vice president of content for Cumulus, wrote in an internal memo, which was first reported by Inside Music Media. Cumulus and its program syndication arm, Westwood One, “will not tolerate any suggestion that the election has not ended. The election has been resolved and there are no alternate acceptable ‘paths.’ ”

The memo adds: “If you transgress this policy, you can expect to separate from the company immediately.”

A Cumulus representative did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Sunday.

The new policy is a stunning corporate clampdown on the kind of provocative and even inflammatory talk that has long driven the business model for Cumulus and other talk show broadcasters. And it came as Apple, Google and Amazon cut off essential business services to Parler, the pro-Trump social media network where users have promoted falsehoods about election fraud and praised the mob that assaulted the Capitol. Apple and Google removed the Parler app from the offerings for its smartphones, while Amazon suspended it from its Web-hosting services. (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

Since the election, Cumulus has remained silent while some of its most popular hosts — which include Mark Levin and Dan Bongino — have amplified Trump’s lies that the vote was “rigged” or in some way fraudulent.

On his program on Tuesday, the day before the march on the Capitol, for example, Levin fulminated about Congress’s certification of electoral votes for Biden, describing the normally routine vote as an act of “tyranny.”

“You think the framers of the Constitution … sat there and said, ‘Congress has no choice [to accept the votes], even if there’s fraud, even if there’s some court order, even if some legislature has violated the Constitution?’ ” Levin said, his voice rising to a shout.

Atlanta-based Cumulus owns 416 radio stations in 84 regions across the country. Many of its stations broadcast a talk format, a medium that has been dominated by a conservative point of view for decades. In addition to its national personalities, it employs local talk-radio hosts in many of its markets.

Cumulus’s biggest stations include WMAL in Washington, KABC in Los Angeles, WLS in Chicago and KGO in San Francisco, all of which air a news-talk format.

Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the biggest star of conservative talk, is syndicated by another company, Premiere Networks, though his program is heard on many Cumulus-owned stations. Limbaugh isn’t subject to Cumulus’s memo. Another of Cumulus’ talk stars, Ben Shapiro, has gone against the grain of conservative talk radio by telling listeners that Trump has been wrong in his claims that the election was rigged.

The memo appears to reflect the reality that voters, presidential electors, courts and now Congress have accepted or certified that Biden won the election and is the president-elect. It may also be an attempt to cool down emotions that led to Wednesday’s invasion of the Capitol, and to mollify advertisers that are concerned about being associated with programs that could be inciting listeners to violence.

But it also reveals some of the hidden corporate hand behind what is said and discussed on talk-radio programs. Rather than a medium of freethinking individuals expressing passionately held beliefs, the memo reminds that hosts are subject to corporate mandates and control.

“It’s naive not to recognize that a corporate imperative goes into all media,” said Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers magazine, which covers talk radio. “Corporations have always called the tune ultimately. Everyone pays attention to the guys at the top and always has.”

Talk-radio hosts, Harrison said, “never expected” their critiques of the election “to get out of hand” in the manner seen Wednesday. Cumulus and other broadcast companies “recognize they’re in the hot seat right now because the national eye is on them,” he said.

Asked how hosts who have repeatedly promoted Trump’s claims of fraud can now credibly flip to acceptance, Harrison said: “I would hope they put their personal feelings aside and come clean with their listeners. I encourage them to pursue the truth and to tell their audience something that Trump may not like.”

However, there’s some question as to whether stars such as Levin will comply with the recent edict and whether Cumulus will discipline them if they don’t.

On his syndicated radio program on Thursday, a day after Cumulus sent its memo and Trump supporters breached the Capitol, Levin didn’t seem to be backing off. “It appears nothing has changed in 24 hours,” he said on the air. “Not a damn thing. The never-Trumpers, the RINOs, the media — same damn thing.”

He went on to add: “I’m not stirring up a damn thing. Everything I say is based on principle and mission. Everything is based on liberty, family, faith, the Constitution. … My enemies and my critics can’t say the same.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/cumulus-radio-conservative-election-fraud/2021/01/11/e12ec46e-537c-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

[AUDub 11,148]

Saw that. Cumulus cracking down is big.

Don't see Mark Levin or Bongino being long for the platform in the face of that edict. 

[GoAU 1,600]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

So you do agree they should have the ability to moderate the content on their site.  

 

No, I am saying there was not a call to violence or threats of violence  made by the President.  

[GoAU 1,600]

16 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

The Biden stories weren’t promoted or advertised on those platforms. However, if you listen to Blaze, Red Eye Radio, NewsMax, ... etc you get the same thing for less than flattering stories concerning the President. I would submit anyone who gets their “news “ from Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or whatever, needs to rethink their choice of sources. This is a capatilistic decision made by a company in business to make money. If the owner of the social media companies felt it was in their financial best interest to make a different decision concerning the President they would. 

I absolutely agree with people needing to get news from multiple sources.   The sources are pretty equally polarized, and it’s having a similar affect on society in general. Getting news from social media is mostly just high tech garbage.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

7 minutes ago, GoAU said:

No, I am saying there was not a call to violence or threats of violence  made by the President.  

So you're saying they don't have any right to moderate content on their site?

[homersapien 11,373]

12 hours ago, GoAU said:

So, you are saying it’s ok to stereotype 70 million people based on political views because of the acts of the .00001% that stormed the Capitol?   Profile much? 

 

No, I am describing the motivation of people like Cruz and Hawley  to double down on Trumpism. 

If you want to know the percentage of those 70 million who proscribe to the lie the election was stolen, go back to the article I linked. 

And based on your profiling of the BLM, you have no standing to accuse others of "profiling".  There's statistics on the BLM protests also.  There were thousands of them across the country and they including a lot of white people.

[homersapien 11,373]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

If the BLM riots were mostly peaceful, than the March in DC wouldn’t be an issue - it paled in comparison.  I’m glad you let your child participate in a BLM rally - it’s great to allow / encourage children to stand for what they believe in.  However, I’m somehow doubting you packed them a lunch and sent them to CHAZ /CHOP,  or did you?  Are you really denying the riots that occurred all summer?  Not saying ALL BLM events had riots but there were plenty - some became nightly events.    There was ONE event where there was a small sub-segment of the conservative base that went full stupid and YOUR the one trying to paint everyone on the right with that brush.   
 

as for your last statement / your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.  
 

I find it completely insane how you don’t see an issue with muzzling constitutional rights.  Not surprising mind you, as all examples of liberalism and socialism end it utter disaster, but insane.  

Yeah, and we've never had a problem with Facism. 

And it's completely insane that you would write off  an insurrection on our government - a direct attack on or constitution - and compare it to black (and white) people demonstrating because of police brutality based on race (there's statistics on that also).

For someone who is either current or ex-military, such reasoning is disturbing.  But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.  No doubt there were a lot of ex-military in the mob who assaulted our capitol - as well as a few active duty cops.

Don't you guys swear an oath to protect the constitution and defend our country from enemies both external and internal?

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

No, I am saying there was not a call to violence or threats of violence  made by the President.  

  WTF???   Where the hell have you been??! 

I can cite numerous instances of Trump making veiled - and not so veiled - threats of violence - dating to even before the election. (Remember the "second amendment solution" when referring to Hillary?  How about advising the police about not being so gentle when arresting suspects?

And the latest example was just last week when he urged his protestors to literally march on the capitol!  The erected a gallows meant for Pelosi.  What did Trump say about that?  He told them he loved them.

And last I heard, he still claims the election was stolen from him.  So maybe there's more to come.

Here, let me help you out since you have apparently been isolated:

https://fortune.com/2021/01/07/trump-speech-capitol-attack-riots-pence-we-will-never-concede-maga-rally/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump-comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766

https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-violent-rhetoric-history-226873

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/12129

https://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/