Forget the first amendment and who is or isn't government because these people just don't care, and is somewhat less important. The important thing is that the most powerful people from all sectors are colluding to suppress demonstrable truths. Legalities are a side-show to the fact that the entire elite class is engaged in a war against reality itself, and there is no better grounds for their absolute replacement.
I wanted to share this one because it's a bizarre sounding argument, but I've actually seen it before.
Where I've seen it before was under the claim that the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) (Nazis) were a Capitalist organization because political parties are not public entities, and are actually private organizations; therefore a single party seizing absolute control over the state, and then using state control to dominate all of society, is AXSCHKULLY private companies seizing public power, not public companies seizing private property.
So, when the Ba'ath party seizes power in Iraq? That's Capitalism. Or when the Leninists seize power in Russia? That's Capitalism. Or when the Khmer Rouge seize power in Cambodia? Still Capitalism. All those Socialists are private property owners, bro.
They're drawing an even finer point than that. It's more like:
"If you say something on the internet and the Democratic party tells the platform to remove it, it's just one private entity interacting with a private company and they can do what they want"
In the most crude analysis they're not wrong, but it's far more complicated than that. Is Twitter agreeing to the Democratic party's request of their own accord, or is it because the Democratic party represents roughly half of the currently sitting legislators? As u/Gizortnok said, there is a chilling effect on free speech.
If I am in government, you piss me off, and I don't directly beat you up, but I call my cousin (Sal, naturally) to beat you up, it's cool right? After all, it's just two private individuals havin' a scrum. Part and parcel of living in a big city.
"Private company" is their loophole for everything.
I call it a jewish trick.
Companies are made up of people. Governments are made up of people. The same people, taking the same stupid meetings, sending emails to each other, and occasionally switching sides are trying to punish us. I don't care which side you present as today, jew.
The way parties work is characteristic of the blurry lines between the public and private sectors within our system. The DNC and RNC are themselves private, but they get members in both elected and appointed government positions.
While serving as the head of the DNC, Debbie "Wash Yo Ass Schultz" is a private citizen. Is it a 1A violation if she asks Twitter to censor something? What if she does it at the request of Dems in the government? If she does it to benefit Dems in government, does it matter if she were asked or not? Does her reasoning matter at all given the nature of political parties? It is this sort of blurriness that French is weaseling around.
Another problem is if Twitter censors without involving the DNC. Their shared worldview means they will do so in many cases even if not told. This highlights a hole in our current free speech protections. They aren't good at protecting from censorship as a result of privatizing the public square.
They aren't good at protecting from censorship as a result of privatizing the public square.
The public square can't be private. This is not an issue of there being 'fuzziness', this shit was understood over a century ago regarding Company Towns. It's just the bureaucrats within the state pretending to be retarded on purpose. It's the same shit they play with definitions regarding all old laws that stand in their way. "a well regulated militia means that only the government can own weapons!" style.
A state actor is an intentionally broad term. It's why being forced by your school to scan your room visually with a camera was considered a violation of your rights regarding unreasonable search and seizure. The test proctor for your school is a state actor.
The political party activists, acting in the interests of members of the state are state actors. In fact, by complying with these voluntary requests by government bureaucrats Twitter is operating as a state actor. It's not just that Twitter interfered in the election it's that the government did. That's been well established by over 100 years of legal precedent that the state is pretending never happened and was ill defined.
Two words that never get spoken anymore by anyone on the Left, and their absence has been loudly noted: "chilling effect".
It means that even behaviors by the state that aren't censorious, but could promote self-censorship, are violations of the 1st Amendment. They know good and god damned well that it exists, and they are pretending to have never heard of it.
And no, Twitter shouldn't be the public square, but like with the Company Towns, the government sought to make it so.
No, the first amendment protects from viewpoint discrimination by the state. The power of viewpoint discrimination is far too likely to abuse for it to be only wielded against incompatible ideologies.
Company towns were built with the subsidization of the state, such that all property and businesses were owned by the mining company themselves. They were "Corporate Plantations Campuses" if you will, but you couldn't even buy food that wasn't owned by the company.
SCOTUS actually asserted over a hundred years ago that under such conditions, the company was effectively a state actor, and was required to abide by the constitution, even if the business was privately run.
It's the fact that the state has, and is currently, proping it up with total authority as a public square. Through funding, through exclusion from regulation, through back-room deals with other industries at the government's behest.
Twitter.com shouldn't be the public square, but the government doesn't want decentralized communication. I'm happy letting Twitter do whatever it wants if it were a private company that was exclusive to itself and not operating as the extension of discussion from the state. That, however, requires ripping the fingernails out of the government. Since we can't do that yet, we have to recognize that a chilling effect on speech is very obviously taking place when the government is trying to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Senior Editor @TheDispatch, contributing writer @TheAtlantic, ... Iraq vet
What's the sociology/philosophy term for people like this? I doubt he's stupid. He's been an influencer or pundit for a long time, so he knows what he's doing, and he knows that we know what he's doing. He's not a politician himself so it's not like he's trying to get elected. He's a naked propagandist whose sole job is to carry water for establishment powers and use pilpul to distract from and diminish regime malfeasance, or attack their enemies. He's like an anti-Assange, yet he can live with himself.
I don't want to know how someone becomes that kind of person, but they are a constant in politics and corrupt states.
Yes, I believe his whole pozzed crew at the National Review still claims to be conservative. Reading through it is sort of like reading a list of the most boomer takes on patriots dot win.
Forget the first amendment and who is or isn't government because these people just don't care, and is somewhat less important. The important thing is that the most powerful people from all sectors are colluding to suppress demonstrable truths. Legalities are a side-show to the fact that the entire elite class is engaged in a war against reality itself, and there is no better grounds for their absolute replacement.
That's the only demographic replacement I approve of!
Probably your most ironic post yet lol
Cool it with the antisemitism bro.
Removal
Some things don't need to be replaced
There will always be an elite class, although it varies in structure.
I wanted to share this one because it's a bizarre sounding argument, but I've actually seen it before.
Where I've seen it before was under the claim that the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) (Nazis) were a Capitalist organization because political parties are not public entities, and are actually private organizations; therefore a single party seizing absolute control over the state, and then using state control to dominate all of society, is AXSCHKULLY private companies seizing public power, not public companies seizing private property.
So, when the Ba'ath party seizes power in Iraq? That's Capitalism. Or when the Leninists seize power in Russia? That's Capitalism. Or when the Khmer Rouge seize power in Cambodia? Still Capitalism. All those Socialists are private property owners, bro.
Here's one of the original arguments about how the National Socialists were Capitalists. It's from Germà Bel. Basically, the claim is that it doesn't matter that the NSDAP was running the state. If the NSDAP sells a state run company to itself (from the state to the state party), that is considered privatization.
Here's a useful video on Public v. Private as economic & political concepts - via TikHistory
Well, they can't be Real Communists™. Don't you know that Real Communism™ has never been tried?
If you say something on the internet and the government removes it, it's a violation of the first amendment
If you say something on the internet and the government tells the platform to remove it, it's just a private company and they can do what they want
I love democracy
They're drawing an even finer point than that. It's more like:
"If you say something on the internet and the Democratic party tells the platform to remove it, it's just one private entity interacting with a private company and they can do what they want"
In the most crude analysis they're not wrong, but it's far more complicated than that. Is Twitter agreeing to the Democratic party's request of their own accord, or is it because the Democratic party represents roughly half of the currently sitting legislators? As u/Gizortnok said, there is a chilling effect on free speech.
"Seth Rich wasn't assassinated by the government because his death was ordered by a private citizen: Hillary Clinton"
If I am in government, you piss me off, and I don't directly beat you up, but I call my cousin (Sal, naturally) to beat you up, it's cool right? After all, it's just two private individuals havin' a scrum. Part and parcel of living in a big city.
"Private company" is their loophole for everything.
I call it a jewish trick.
Companies are made up of people. Governments are made up of people. The same people, taking the same stupid meetings, sending emails to each other, and occasionally switching sides are trying to punish us. I don't care which side you present as today, jew.
The way parties work is characteristic of the blurry lines between the public and private sectors within our system. The DNC and RNC are themselves private, but they get members in both elected and appointed government positions.
While serving as the head of the DNC, Debbie "Wash Yo Ass Schultz" is a private citizen. Is it a 1A violation if she asks Twitter to censor something? What if she does it at the request of Dems in the government? If she does it to benefit Dems in government, does it matter if she were asked or not? Does her reasoning matter at all given the nature of political parties? It is this sort of blurriness that French is weaseling around.
Another problem is if Twitter censors without involving the DNC. Their shared worldview means they will do so in many cases even if not told. This highlights a hole in our current free speech protections. They aren't good at protecting from censorship as a result of privatizing the public square.
The public square can't be private. This is not an issue of there being 'fuzziness', this shit was understood over a century ago regarding Company Towns. It's just the bureaucrats within the state pretending to be retarded on purpose. It's the same shit they play with definitions regarding all old laws that stand in their way. "a well regulated militia means that only the government can own weapons!" style.
A state actor is an intentionally broad term. It's why being forced by your school to scan your room visually with a camera was considered a violation of your rights regarding unreasonable search and seizure. The test proctor for your school is a state actor.
The political party activists, acting in the interests of members of the state are state actors. In fact, by complying with these voluntary requests by government bureaucrats Twitter is operating as a state actor. It's not just that Twitter interfered in the election it's that the government did. That's been well established by over 100 years of legal precedent that the state is pretending never happened and was ill defined.
Two words that never get spoken anymore by anyone on the Left, and their absence has been loudly noted: "chilling effect".
It means that even behaviors by the state that aren't censorious, but could promote self-censorship, are violations of the 1st Amendment. They know good and god damned well that it exists, and they are pretending to have never heard of it.
Is Twitter the public square? Should it be?
Do you think the state should not be allowed to declare beliefs such as White supremacy to be terrorist threats?
And no, Twitter shouldn't be the public square, but like with the Company Towns, the government sought to make it so.
No, the first amendment protects from viewpoint discrimination by the state. The power of viewpoint discrimination is far too likely to abuse for it to be only wielded against incompatible ideologies.
Which would then mean they could censor whatever they want, no?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
If they weren't the public square.
Company towns were built with the subsidization of the state, such that all property and businesses were owned by the mining company themselves. They were "Corporate
PlantationsCampuses" if you will, but you couldn't even buy food that wasn't owned by the company.SCOTUS actually asserted over a hundred years ago that under such conditions, the company was effectively a state actor, and was required to abide by the constitution, even if the business was privately run.
What makes Twitter the public square? It is actually a private company.
It's the fact that the state has, and is currently, proping it up with total authority as a public square. Through funding, through exclusion from regulation, through back-room deals with other industries at the government's behest.
Twitter.com shouldn't be the public square, but the government doesn't want decentralized communication. I'm happy letting Twitter do whatever it wants if it were a private company that was exclusive to itself and not operating as the extension of discussion from the state. That, however, requires ripping the fingernails out of the government. Since we can't do that yet, we have to recognize that a chilling effect on speech is very obviously taking place when the government is trying to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
If they do it? Legal, but should be subject to campaign financing laws as an in-kind contribution of some astronomical value.
Of course, since campaign financing laws only appear to be applied one-way, that's not going to work either.
"REPUBLICANS ARE BAD!!!!!!"
"Ah, well, political parties are not the government."
What's the sociology/philosophy term for people like this? I doubt he's stupid. He's been an influencer or pundit for a long time, so he knows what he's doing, and he knows that we know what he's doing. He's not a politician himself so it's not like he's trying to get elected. He's a naked propagandist whose sole job is to carry water for establishment powers and use pilpul to distract from and diminish regime malfeasance, or attack their enemies. He's like an anti-Assange, yet he can live with himself.
I don't want to know how someone becomes that kind of person, but they are a constant in politics and corrupt states.
The word you’re looking for is “demon”.
5th Columnist?
Does David French still claim to be conservative?
Yes, I believe his whole pozzed crew at the National Review still claims to be conservative. Reading through it is sort of like reading a list of the most boomer takes on patriots dot win.
I honestly don't know.
It was a mistake to click through to that tweet thread.
State agent detected, opinion rejected.
"I AM THE LAW!" squirts
Gross Lesbian Judge Dredd.