[DJ1]

The 1st Amendment is the 1st Amendment....

Vids / links to Farcebook & Youtube vids being scrubbed in relation to the recent New Zealand shooting, thus the alternative channel...

As originally titled...
"Very interesting video. Only for Muslims. Please do not redistribute"

---> https://www.bitchute.com/video/DZosiZR0MQJA/


"Serbia strong orginal bay Radovan Karadzic"

---> https://www.bitchute.com/video/5QN80jVZ1qQN/


...still on youtube in the meantime...

"SERBIA STRONG!"

--->

...however comments are now disabled. Surprise, surprise.

...that is why you have/use "Dissenter"...







.

 

[Dutch577]

Why do people think the 1st amendment is without bounds? It doesn't apply in my house. Your welcome in my home, for example, would be shortened by what comes out of one's mouths.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[DJ1]

Tell us how you really feel comrade dutch...






.

 

[Cod]

Why do people think the 1st amendment is without bounds? It doesn't apply in my house. Your welcome in my home, for example, would be shortened by what comes out of one's mouths.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

But it’s also your first amendment to tell him to get the fuck outta your house, then it’s your second to remove him from your house.

When they put boundaries on the first they will also start slowly stripping away other rights.

Ya know kind of like buy insurance or you’ll be fined and there is nothing you can do about but hey let’s give insurance to illegals.....

FWIW there’s a site called crazy shit, kind of like the old stile project site any new or fucked up video you can find it there for a short while, the NZ shooter was on a fucking mission, he was well prepared and had been practicing. Yes he’s a sick fuck

 

[Dutch577]

In my house, I am not exercising the first amendment when I say there are boundaries to what you can say. By entering my house, people have agreed to follow my house rules. You are not protected by the constitution in my house.

When a person goes to all these sites, they also agree to play by their house rules. There is no constitutional protection when one has agreed to participate within certain parameters.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[DJ1]

...and therein lies the difference...

...nobody other than you and yours are IN "your" house...

...discussions are being held out in public...

...but you prefer to silence them anyway...

...good day, comrade.



.

 

[DJ1]

...meanwhile...





NZ Threatens 10 Years In Prison For 'Possessing' Mosque Shooting Video; Web Hosts Warned, 'Dissenter' Banned -- 3/16/19

---> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...essing-mosque-shooting-video-web-hosts-warned


Beautiful. Maybe those who only watched the video but did not distribute it will only get 5 years imprisonment.

COD...how do you plead?

LMFAO


.

 

[D94R]

...and therein lies the difference...

...nobody other than you and yours are IN "your" house...

...discussions are being held out in public...

...but you prefer to silence them anyway...

...good day, comrade.



.

Dutch is right though. And youtube, google, and facebook are not public, they are private sites with public access.

Using both of your "my house" analogies its more like this:

I have a huge yard, I allow people to stand around in my yard and have conversations. I allow people to project videos on a billboard in my yard for every body driving by to see. (I may or may not make money from this)

I don't like the videos or conversations some people are having, so I ask them to leave and in turn no longer allow that stuff in my yard. (As I fear I could lose income because people will stop using my services)

I have violated no ones 1st Amendment Right. I am not a socialist/communist/dictator/whatever you want to infer.


On the other hand, had this been a public piece of land the entire situation changes.

 

[D94R]

NZ on the other hand can get fucked if they'd want to fine me for hosting a video on my own server and website.

 

[DJ1]

Dutch is right though. And youtube, google, and facebook are not public, they are private sites with public access.

That is where you are wrong. Socials such as Facebook are classified as digital town/public squares...




.

 

[D94R]

Ok, I'm not gonna lie and say I know what the technicality of that is, nor where its technically/lawfully defined to be such a venue. To be a real public square though doesn't it wholely have to be a public space? Isn't facebook still a privately owned .com? Quick google-fu tells me Zuckerburg wants to call it a digital town square, but simply saying something is something does not technically or legally change it's identity... unless we are talking genders.

 

[thedirtman]

I guess some people need to actually read the constitution. The 1st amendment is only 1 sentence so its not that hard to understand.

 

[DJ1]

I'm guessing you both advocate the out-right deplatforming of conservatives from digital public squares that are run by marxists so they may control the "public" narrative...





YouTube Deplatforms Retired Navy SEAL Who Exposed Tribal Elder Nathan Phillips' Stolen Valor -- 2/26/19

---> https://pjmedia.com/trending/youtub...ed-tribal-elder-nathan-phillips-stolen-valor/

YouTube last week deplatformed a YouTube channel that specialized in exposing Stolen Valor cases. "Stolen Valor," of course, refers to cases where dishonorable pretenders are caught making fraudulent claims of military honors they didn't earn. Retired Navy Seal Don Shipley has made it his life's mission to expose these shameless charlatans. His channel had 232,806 subscribers at the time it was taken down and had been in operation since around 2008.

He told PJ Media that he thinks his channel was taken down because he had "outed Nathan Phillips," who had "masqueraded as a Vietnam vet."

Carry on comrades...



.

 

[Dutch577]

That is where you are wrong. Socials such as Facebook are classified as digital town/public squares...









.

You do realize when you signed up for all of these sites, you agreed to their rules of behavior and terms and conditions? There is no first amendment protection afforded to you on their property.

I am not really sure why this is difficult to understand. Pointing out you agreed to a certain behavior on those sites does not make me a communist. It simply points out some people refuse to read the fine print.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[D94R]

I'm guessing you both advocate the out-right deplatforming of conservatives from digital public squares that are run by marxists so they may control the "public" narrative...



Carry on comrades...



.

Not sure if I'm in that "both". Anyhow, if you can show me/us:

• What legally defines a public square (real or as applied to digital)
• What legalities surround the 1st Amendment in a public square (is it as simple as say what you want as long as it's not a call to action for violence?)
• What legally makes any of the social media sites a public square

Then yes, I'm OK with YOUTUBE censoring anyone they want. Any conservative has the opportunity to start their own FuckYouTube.com site for their own videos and censor all the libtards all day long for all I care. Until they are a government owned and operated website, built for the sole purpose of allowing anyone to post what they want, and then they start selectively censoring people, then no I'm not affected.


Not rallying against social media because they can/want to do this is not advocating for this type of treatment.

 

[thedirtman]

IF you don't like their policies ( I don't) don't use them (I don't) and delete your account. You are one of the people that gives them the power they use to destroy what you believe in. Article 1 says only congress shall make no law, that is it. Not a mayor, president, city council, public forum or any private corporation. The constitution is there to protect the people from excessive and abusive government. It has nothing to do with any private entity.

 

[Dutch577]

Not sure if I'm in that "both". Anyhow, if you can show me/us:

• What legally defines a public square (real or as applied to digital)
• What legalities surround the 1st Amendment in a public square (is it as simple as say what you want as long as it's not a call to action for violence?)
• What legally makes any of the social media sites a public square

Then yes, I'm OK with YOUTUBE censoring anyone they want. Any conservative has the opportunity to start their own FuckYouTube.com site for their own videos and censor all the libtards all day long for all I care. Until they are a government owned and operated website, built for the sole purpose of allowing anyone to post what they want, and then they start selectively censoring people, then no I'm not affected.


Not rallying against social media because they can/want to do this is not advocating for this type of treatment.

I think there are websites where anything goes. The same people claiming conservatives are unfairly censored can't limit anything, can they?

Omar was practicing her 1st amendment rights, not anti- semitism, right? One man's terrorist is another man's patriot, no? How can their viewpoints be excluded? The only acceptable rules of behavior would be no rules of behavior.

As long as you are not getting any financial gain from your claims, I believe you are protected by the first amendment to say you are a combat veteran, even if you weren't. I don't know where the rule stands today. I have my CIB, I don't worry about things like that.

People can't take things where there has been no clear cut decision and claim there is a position when there isn't. They may not remember, there was an agreement in the beginning of their relationship with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and whatever.

Having no rules of behavior on some whatever message board will kill it in about 6 hours. Anarchy had never worked in any culture and won't in the social media construct either.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[gt1guy]

I think the problem with all those social media platforms, is that they "claim" everybody has a voice. When in fact, everybody does not.

What's going to bite them in the ass, is that since they do pick a choose what gets seen, they have turned themselves into a content company (I think that's the right term, might not be though). That's going to get them regulated by the .gov.

I don't use any of that stuff so I wouldn't know if the .gov crawls up their ass or not.

 

[KnightJK]

Does anyone actually believe there is no monetary/power gain for facebook, twitter, or youtube to censor conservative ideas?

Step 1. Reach millions of people
Step 2. Destabilize society with anxiety, depression, insecurities, informal relationships, bullying, etc.
Step 3. Censor any ideas that do not align with their own. Why censor people who are preaching to think freely? To think for oneself rather than believe anything they're told?
Step 4. Distract everyone with equality and inclusion bullshit instead of quality or scientific facts. How is lowering the standards for a specific group of people to reach the same outcome, equality?! Equality, meaning equal.. as in the same as. Not we can just change the rules/definitions to LOOK the same.
Step 5. Slowly chip away at peoples ideas of the protections written by our Founding Fathers for this exact scenario.

The scary part is how deeply intertwined it has gotten in everyone's day to day lives. Take Netflix for instance. Just a platform for streaming tv and movie content as the end user selects it right? look closer at the shows that are on there. Almost all of them are left leaning. With the exception of "Targeted: Exposing the gun control agenda" which was up for all of a few weeks before it was never to be seen again. So someone who is seemingly just enjoying shows they like, is actually getting pumped full of left ideas without them even knowing it. It's especially dangerous for the youth that hasn't done any research or is indoctrinated at school or at home by their parents, being repetitively exposed to left agendas.

Alright I'm done, I shouldn't have clicked into this thread. :usa:

 

[Treader]

What I dont understand lately, is the new Dem Trio going after Facebook and Google. What's with trying to break up the sources that have gotten them elected. Seems a good way to poke the bear and fuck yourself and future Dems running on the same platform.