Judge Denies Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s Request to Halt YouTube Censorship
(www.breitbart.com)
Comments (40)
sorted by:
So, we've got an administration which is
a) actively trying to arrest the primary political opponent in the other party
and
b) actively censoring (I'm sorry, just permitting the censoring because of course the administration which has pressured these companies to censor before is not doing it this time) a primary challenger within it's own party.
How does everyone like their bananas? Because that seems to be our republic's main export now.
Rationed, like everything in a fascist dictatorship.
Yeah because "rationing" totally yells fascism and not communism, which is where you are heading... You are holding the map upside down;)
Wut? ... Fascism constantly had rationing. Germany, Spain, Italy, and Japan rationed everything: bread, chicken, beef, rubber, steel, iron, tin, etc. Even if we say, "dude bro, that was only because of the war", they still had rationing. This is because they also had price controls. If you have price controls without rationing, you'll get massive shortages and over-supplies, so you have to ration people's purchases. Yes, I'm including Germany's National Socialism and Japan's Ethno-Militarism in these because they are still significantly overlapping for our purposes.
And, mother of God, do not ask about Fascist occupied territories. The Axis countries plundered and rationed Greece and Crete nearly to the death of the whole population. Even the puppet governments were horrified to the level of plunder and starvation that was taking place, such that they contacted the Axis command with a dire warning: "Send us wheat or coffins".
Fascism and War-Time Stalinist Communism have a ton in common. Being that both are Left-wing ideologies and are explicitly extensions from Socialism: Stalinist War-Time Communism is a kind of Nationalized Marxist-Leninism which is a final position for Socialism to achieve after Bolshevism; and Fascism is literally "Trade Unionism", but is understood as a Italian State Syndicalism. Many (Trotskyite) Leftists have called Stalinist Communism "Red Fascism" as a way to distance themselves from his crimes, but they are accurately pointing out a significant overlap.
Fascism and Communism do have some differences, but they can be easily boiled down to: Fascism is a practical application of Communist values, where Communism is an ideological adherence to Communist values using the state and party as the vanguard of a revolution.
Now, Fascism and Bolshevism have a lot more structural differences, but only because Fascism is operating from a single top-down strata, and Bolshevism operates off of the tyranny of the local committee (or Soviet). If Fascism is the practical application of Communist values, then Bolshevism is the totalitarian adherence to Communist values to the point of nearly suicidal, perpetual, revolutionary, warfare. The economic objectives are all still exactly the same, and rationing is part of that.
While at war. Yes. So did the US and England. Again: while at war. Almost like there's a common thread running through everything.
Yes, that thread is called Socialism. Anyways:
First: none of the Fascists could stay out of war for even two seconds, so let's not pretend that's an exception to the rule like most normal countries would be.
Second: price controls are still in all of those countries, as per the imperative of Socialism that writes all of them.
Now generate the same but in the context of faggotry instead rationing. Please use the maximum length response.
Not sure what you are hoping for here. Homosexuality has nothing to do with Socialism, which is why most socialists advocated killing gays, because they were evidence of late stage capitalism that couldn't be tolerated in a Communist utopia.
The only reason the Left tolerates it at all is because it's a useful "coalition of the margins".
If you want to whine about Weimar Germany tolerating it, you'll have to recognize that that's most likely the left-over institutional tolerance from the fact that there were a significant number of gays among Bismark's government. Again, the Fabian Socialists could have been using it as a coalition of the margins, but more than likely: gays were already in the established government. They were also in lots of other sectors. Like the SA.
You know, in an actual banana republic like Guatemala, things are more sane, and bananas are cheaper.
Here is where it gets really bad.
Astonishing.
(X) Doubt
Absolute bullshit.
He's running for fucking president, you hack judge.
Completely fucking irrelevant. So fucking stupid. So, say they were a state actor. Now Congress may abridge speech, as long as not all government entities abridge speech? This is fucking peak retard, and I'm deeply offended. Dis bitch, man.
Death penalty. Fucking death penalty. To quote the Most Popular President Ever...“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.”
Fuck public consideration. Fuck it hard.
Ah, yes, the Constitutional clause, "unless there's a flu going around."
Dude, I'm legitimately outraged at this nonsense. More so than usual. This is just...wow. Wow.
Oh, and of course she's a diversity hire. Fuck this regime, man.
Every woman judge is a diversity hire.
Well in that case she's a double diversity hire. At least. I wonder if she's gay or something too...
I hope he can appeal because that would be a terrible precedent.
If anything, that's an understatement. This is "Tree of Liberty is looking a little parched, ain't it?" territory.
Holy shit I'm mad.
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
fuck DC, fuck California, and fuck fed jannies
Actually, I believe that is incorrect. In 2012, United States vs Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Stolen Valor act (which made it illegal to lie about having received military medals), saying that it violated free speech provisions.
Can't recall if they ruled on anything else in the past decade that overturned that, but going off Alvarez you can lie and have it covered under free speech.
Where does it say in the constitution anything about not protecting lies? None of the constitutional "exceptions" were meant to be there.
Court precedent
That’s not constitutional.
Your "teacher" was woefully fucking misinformed to the point of treason.
I never said what I posted was a good thing, it's just how they operate and it's disgusting.
Those are NOT lies.
This is how they get around the constitution and it is literally what fascism is about - getting worker unions and corporations to do the bidding of the government but outside of the boundaries of constitution.
You don't need to struggle to pass laws that will get struck down by the courts if you get corporations to do your bidding anyways.
My position is that big tech platforms are a de facto public space. That is how they offered themselves at the start, that is how the public came to them and that it how they are being used. For these platforms to then act as a willfully biased curator is simply not acceptable.
They can't have their cake and eat it to. They either must be forced to serve the public in the manner which they offered their service or they can be made to be accountable for their curation.
This judge is a useful idiot.
The section 230 argument was good for 2014/15 but at this point we have social media taking direct orders from government agencies to act on their behalf.
The idea that anyone can say with a straight face that social media sites are not government actors is either ignorance or hubris and neither is befitting a judge.
I agree but I believe that is a separate issue and is likely going to have to be handled by congress (reminder to all constituents that it is YOUR DUTY to apply pressure on congress members...). And just so we're clear, I see that as a criminal issue on the part of the federal government actors. They are in a very clear willful violation of the founding principles and law of the country.
RIP America
Nobody likes a quitter.
Ironically this is the first story I've seen mentioning RFK in a month.
The last I really heard of him was his appearance on The Jimmy Dore Show about a month ago where he was singing Israel's praises.
Then Jimmy got shit for not pushing back hard enough, which he attributed to not knowing enough about contemporary and historical Israel.
So he asked RFK to talk to Max Blumenthal of The Gray Zone, which never happened.
Women in law is a dangerous experiment and proof that women follow their feelings over the constitution/law
Majority of law school students are female now in Canada and the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trina_Thompson
Affirmative action hire destroying 800 years of legal history?