|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 17 2022 13:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views. I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so.
But again, you're mis-representing what public square, in the quoted Supreme Court opinion, is referring to and what the First Amendment does. In the legal opinion cited, Packingham v. North Carolina, Twitter and Facebook are not the public square. The wider internet is the public square, and the internet itself is the means of discourse. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc. are private entities which offer services upon that public square. Maintaining a "free market place of ideas" here means the ability to access the internet, not the ability to be present in a given private service provided by a private commercial company.
Furthermore, the First Amendment is not meant to maintain the "free marketplace of ideas" in all venues. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it protects. The First Amendment is to prevent government restrictions upon speech. Again, private entities such as Twitter and Facebook are not subject to it, and there's no "free marketplace of ideas" upon private property. In fact, per Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it is an infringement upon the "free marketplace of ideas" to force private entities, i.e. Twitter or Facebook, to service all individuals or ideas.
If you'd like to counter that claim, please provide another legal opinion or updated law which would invalidate or override Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado.
|
On April 17 2022 13:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views. I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so. Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 12:31 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 10:27 gobbledydook wrote:On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
The claims were not and have not been substantiated.
That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:
[quote]
Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this? If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you. I have 1000 examples of people in the US pedaling political influence for money that are proven and apparently legal, that a politicans sons alluded to doing it possibly is not news. Not to mention last I checked people did not get in trouble for claiming their parents might be involved. So if he meant Joe, does that mean Joe was actually involved? Am I suposed to believe that Hunter is the most dishonest horrible person, but in this case honest and truthful? Am I to get worked up that Biden might have got a small payment? Kushner just got 2 billion, hoe much did the US gov pay at Trump resorts? Did all the foriegn nationals who switched their washington business to Trump properties after he got elected how much wss that, that is fine? We should probably check his taxes to see, oh they never came? Well he at least was not involved with his businesses while being president, oh he was? Is what Biden is being assumed to have done even illegal? Its so much less money then top lobbiests make or "donations" made. And not that either party is making and effort to tighten these horrible laws but the Reps are actively attempting to remove what little exists. The fake outrage about this or "emails" is so damn transparent its frustrating as hell. Have a tiny bit of logical consistency please. If Joe Biden has done something illegal by all means throw the book at him, but the amout of stupid conversations with the very same people who are all worked up about this, around horrible shit people have done and the proof is 10000x more clear, where the argument was "but legally that is not proven so it is allowed", to pretend some sort of moral high ground and arguement, come on. Apply the same burden of proof to basically every Republican that gets brought up here and they are all in jail for way longer terms. But you will not, not even close, so stop pretending to be victims and live up to the not very high standard of sourcing some proof of the claim and at least pretend to be upset when your team does the same and worse (heads up, its going to be a lot and very often.) If Joe used his influence to boost Hunter's political consulting activity and in return Joe took a cut, that is a potentially illegal corruption scheme. And that is so even if lobbying is corrupt and Trump is corrupt. (But I agree, Trump should be called out for corruption too.) The NYT has established that when Hunter wrote emails, he referred to Joe not by Joe's name but instead as Hunter's "guy": https://nyti.ms/3wd3MNf The NY Post recently reported on a text in which Hunter said "unlike pop, I won't make you give me half your salary": https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-revealSame story says Hunter's business partner emailed Hunter saying "your dad just called me and mentioned he'd be out a lot soon and not really back until Labor Day . . . He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential." There are other examples.
This appears to show that Hunter tried to twist situations to manipulate people into thinking they'd benefit from helping him.
Make no mistake, no one is saying Hunter Biden isn't a piece of shit. But until I see evidence of Biden actually contributing to the corruption, it appears to all be Hunter convincing people to give him free shit in hopes that Joe is in on the deal.
I fully understand that I likely live in an insulated news-sphere that makes me not see the stuff you see. If I am wrong, please point it out. I think I have posted enough about Biden being an incompetent disappointment for you to believe me when I say I don't suck his dick. But right now, I legitimately don't see anything that harms Joe Biden. Hunter, clearly trash. But Hunter has not been linked to Joe yet from what I have read.
|
|
|
On April 17 2022 13:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 13:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views. I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so. On April 17 2022 12:31 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 10:27 gobbledydook wrote:On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here.
[quote]
I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this? If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you. I have 1000 examples of people in the US pedaling political influence for money that are proven and apparently legal, that a politicans sons alluded to doing it possibly is not news. Not to mention last I checked people did not get in trouble for claiming their parents might be involved. So if he meant Joe, does that mean Joe was actually involved? Am I suposed to believe that Hunter is the most dishonest horrible person, but in this case honest and truthful? Am I to get worked up that Biden might have got a small payment? Kushner just got 2 billion, hoe much did the US gov pay at Trump resorts? Did all the foriegn nationals who switched their washington business to Trump properties after he got elected how much wss that, that is fine? We should probably check his taxes to see, oh they never came? Well he at least was not involved with his businesses while being president, oh he was? Is what Biden is being assumed to have done even illegal? Its so much less money then top lobbiests make or "donations" made. And not that either party is making and effort to tighten these horrible laws but the Reps are actively attempting to remove what little exists. The fake outrage about this or "emails" is so damn transparent its frustrating as hell. Have a tiny bit of logical consistency please. If Joe Biden has done something illegal by all means throw the book at him, but the amout of stupid conversations with the very same people who are all worked up about this, around horrible shit people have done and the proof is 10000x more clear, where the argument was "but legally that is not proven so it is allowed", to pretend some sort of moral high ground and arguement, come on. Apply the same burden of proof to basically every Republican that gets brought up here and they are all in jail for way longer terms. But you will not, not even close, so stop pretending to be victims and live up to the not very high standard of sourcing some proof of the claim and at least pretend to be upset when your team does the same and worse (heads up, its going to be a lot and very often.) If Joe used his influence to boost Hunter's political consulting activity and in return Joe took a cut, that is a potentially illegal corruption scheme. And that is so even if lobbying is corrupt and Trump is corrupt. (But I agree, Trump should be called out for corruption too.) The NYT has established that when Hunter wrote emails, he referred to Joe not by Joe's name but instead as Hunter's "guy": https://nyti.ms/3wd3MNf The NY Post recently reported on a text in which Hunter said "unlike pop, I won't make you give me half your salary": https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-revealSame story says Hunter's business partner emailed Hunter saying "your dad just called me and mentioned he'd be out a lot soon and not really back until Labor Day . . . He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential." There are other examples. This appears to show that Hunter tried to twist situations to manipulate people into thinking they'd benefit from helping him. Make no mistake, no one is saying Hunter Biden isn't a piece of shit. But until I see evidence of Biden actually contributing to the corruption, it appears to all be Hunter convincing people to give him free shit in hopes that Joe is in on the deal. I fully understand that I likely live in an insulated news-sphere that makes me not see the stuff you see. If I am wrong, please point it out. I think I have posted enough about Biden being an incompetent disappointment for you to believe me when I say I don't suck his dick. But right now, I legitimately don't see anything that harms Joe Biden. Hunter, clearly trash. But Hunter has not been linked to Joe yet from what I have read.
Well I also left the "big guy" email out of that post. In that email, it was stated that the big guy got a 10% cut of Hunter's Chinese business dealings. The big guy email must be read in conjunction with the NYT's finding that Hunter had a practice of avoiding referring to Joe by name in emails, and instead referred to Joe as Hunter's "guy." So that's not Hunter trying to manipulate people, that's Hunter saying his guy gets a cut.
Similarly, in the other examples, I don't think it's Hunter trying to manipulate people, I think it's Hunter (or Hunter's partner) saying that Joe gets a cut. Besides I don't think Hunter would be trying to manipulate people into helping him by telling those people that Joe gets a cut of the proceeds. That wouldn't really convince those people to help Hunter.
This is about Joe getting a cut of Hunter's foreign political consulting dealings - dealings that were predicated entirely on the fact that Joe Biden is Hunter's father.
|
On April 17 2022 14:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 13:35 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2022 13:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views. I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so. On April 17 2022 12:31 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 10:27 gobbledydook wrote:On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions.
The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this? If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you. I have 1000 examples of people in the US pedaling political influence for money that are proven and apparently legal, that a politicans sons alluded to doing it possibly is not news. Not to mention last I checked people did not get in trouble for claiming their parents might be involved. So if he meant Joe, does that mean Joe was actually involved? Am I suposed to believe that Hunter is the most dishonest horrible person, but in this case honest and truthful? Am I to get worked up that Biden might have got a small payment? Kushner just got 2 billion, hoe much did the US gov pay at Trump resorts? Did all the foriegn nationals who switched their washington business to Trump properties after he got elected how much wss that, that is fine? We should probably check his taxes to see, oh they never came? Well he at least was not involved with his businesses while being president, oh he was? Is what Biden is being assumed to have done even illegal? Its so much less money then top lobbiests make or "donations" made. And not that either party is making and effort to tighten these horrible laws but the Reps are actively attempting to remove what little exists. The fake outrage about this or "emails" is so damn transparent its frustrating as hell. Have a tiny bit of logical consistency please. If Joe Biden has done something illegal by all means throw the book at him, but the amout of stupid conversations with the very same people who are all worked up about this, around horrible shit people have done and the proof is 10000x more clear, where the argument was "but legally that is not proven so it is allowed", to pretend some sort of moral high ground and arguement, come on. Apply the same burden of proof to basically every Republican that gets brought up here and they are all in jail for way longer terms. But you will not, not even close, so stop pretending to be victims and live up to the not very high standard of sourcing some proof of the claim and at least pretend to be upset when your team does the same and worse (heads up, its going to be a lot and very often.) If Joe used his influence to boost Hunter's political consulting activity and in return Joe took a cut, that is a potentially illegal corruption scheme. And that is so even if lobbying is corrupt and Trump is corrupt. (But I agree, Trump should be called out for corruption too.) The NYT has established that when Hunter wrote emails, he referred to Joe not by Joe's name but instead as Hunter's "guy": https://nyti.ms/3wd3MNf The NY Post recently reported on a text in which Hunter said "unlike pop, I won't make you give me half your salary": https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-revealSame story says Hunter's business partner emailed Hunter saying "your dad just called me and mentioned he'd be out a lot soon and not really back until Labor Day . . . He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential." There are other examples. This appears to show that Hunter tried to twist situations to manipulate people into thinking they'd benefit from helping him. Make no mistake, no one is saying Hunter Biden isn't a piece of shit. But until I see evidence of Biden actually contributing to the corruption, it appears to all be Hunter convincing people to give him free shit in hopes that Joe is in on the deal. I fully understand that I likely live in an insulated news-sphere that makes me not see the stuff you see. If I am wrong, please point it out. I think I have posted enough about Biden being an incompetent disappointment for you to believe me when I say I don't suck his dick. But right now, I legitimately don't see anything that harms Joe Biden. Hunter, clearly trash. But Hunter has not been linked to Joe yet from what I have read. Well I also left the "big guy" email out of that post. In that email, it was stated that the big guy got a 10% cut of Hunter's Chinese business dealings. The big guy email must be read in conjunction with the NYT's finding that Hunter had a practice of avoiding referring to Joe by name in emails, and instead referred to Joe as Hunter's "guy." So that's not Hunter trying to manipulate people, that's Hunter saying his guy gets a cut. Similarly, in the other examples, I don't think it's Hunter trying to manipulate people, I think it's Hunter (or Hunter's partner) saying that Joe gets a cut. Besides I don't think Hunter would be trying to manipulate people into helping him by telling those people that Joe gets a cut of the proceeds. That wouldn't really convince those people to help Hunter. This is about Joe getting a cut of Hunter's foreign political consulting dealings - dealings that were predicated entirely on the fact that Joe Biden is Hunter's father.
Are we assuming Hunter is being honest my implying "big guy" is Joe? From my perspective, everyone agrees Hunter is a rotten shit. Once we all agree on that, it feels silly to assume he is being totally honest saying Joe is the "big guy". If everything we are seeing is that Hunter tried to leverage his father's political career to score a bunch of money and drugs, it does not feel appropriate to assume he's being totally truthful with his implications regarding "big guy".
If there is evidence Joe is "big guy", please correct me. But from everything I've seen, we know Hunter has tried to cash in on his dad's career but we don't actually have any evidence Biden was involved.
|
On April 17 2022 13:21 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 13:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views. I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so. But again, you're mis-representing what public square, in the quoted Supreme Court opinion, is referring to and what the First Amendment does. In the legal opinion cited, Packingham v. North Carolina, Twitter and Facebook are not the public square. The wider internet is the public square, and the internet itself is the means of discourse. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc. are private entities which offer services upon that public square. Maintaining a "free market place of ideas" here means the ability to access the internet, not the ability to be present in a given private service provided by a private commercial company. Furthermore, the First Amendment is not meant to maintain the "free marketplace of ideas" in all venues. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it protects. The First Amendment is to prevent government restrictions upon speech. Again, private entities such as Twitter and Facebook are not subject to it, and there's no "free marketplace of ideas" upon private property. In fact, per Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it is an infringement upon the "free marketplace of ideas" to force private entities, i.e. Twitter or Facebook, to service all individuals or ideas. If you'd like to counter that claim, please provide another legal opinion or updated law which would invalidate or override Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado.
The notion that Twitter and Facebook should implement the "free marketplace of ideas" does not depend on the law or government intervention. It's the notion that those companies should implement the principle behind the first amendment. The SC decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop etc have to do with the law/the first amendment, but the "free marketplace of ideas" that people are advocating for is not really premised on the 1A but instead on the principle behind the 1A. They are saying that principle should be carried forward in the digital age, in which Twitter and Facebook are very much the means of discourse. (And I do think that Packingham case makes the point that social media specifically is the modern day means of discourse.)
|
On April 17 2022 14:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 14:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 13:35 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2022 13:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views. I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so. On April 17 2022 12:31 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 10:27 gobbledydook wrote:On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this? If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you. I have 1000 examples of people in the US pedaling political influence for money that are proven and apparently legal, that a politicans sons alluded to doing it possibly is not news. Not to mention last I checked people did not get in trouble for claiming their parents might be involved. So if he meant Joe, does that mean Joe was actually involved? Am I suposed to believe that Hunter is the most dishonest horrible person, but in this case honest and truthful? Am I to get worked up that Biden might have got a small payment? Kushner just got 2 billion, hoe much did the US gov pay at Trump resorts? Did all the foriegn nationals who switched their washington business to Trump properties after he got elected how much wss that, that is fine? We should probably check his taxes to see, oh they never came? Well he at least was not involved with his businesses while being president, oh he was? Is what Biden is being assumed to have done even illegal? Its so much less money then top lobbiests make or "donations" made. And not that either party is making and effort to tighten these horrible laws but the Reps are actively attempting to remove what little exists. The fake outrage about this or "emails" is so damn transparent its frustrating as hell. Have a tiny bit of logical consistency please. If Joe Biden has done something illegal by all means throw the book at him, but the amout of stupid conversations with the very same people who are all worked up about this, around horrible shit people have done and the proof is 10000x more clear, where the argument was "but legally that is not proven so it is allowed", to pretend some sort of moral high ground and arguement, come on. Apply the same burden of proof to basically every Republican that gets brought up here and they are all in jail for way longer terms. But you will not, not even close, so stop pretending to be victims and live up to the not very high standard of sourcing some proof of the claim and at least pretend to be upset when your team does the same and worse (heads up, its going to be a lot and very often.) If Joe used his influence to boost Hunter's political consulting activity and in return Joe took a cut, that is a potentially illegal corruption scheme. And that is so even if lobbying is corrupt and Trump is corrupt. (But I agree, Trump should be called out for corruption too.) The NYT has established that when Hunter wrote emails, he referred to Joe not by Joe's name but instead as Hunter's "guy": https://nyti.ms/3wd3MNf The NY Post recently reported on a text in which Hunter said "unlike pop, I won't make you give me half your salary": https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-revealSame story says Hunter's business partner emailed Hunter saying "your dad just called me and mentioned he'd be out a lot soon and not really back until Labor Day . . . He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential." There are other examples. This appears to show that Hunter tried to twist situations to manipulate people into thinking they'd benefit from helping him. Make no mistake, no one is saying Hunter Biden isn't a piece of shit. But until I see evidence of Biden actually contributing to the corruption, it appears to all be Hunter convincing people to give him free shit in hopes that Joe is in on the deal. I fully understand that I likely live in an insulated news-sphere that makes me not see the stuff you see. If I am wrong, please point it out. I think I have posted enough about Biden being an incompetent disappointment for you to believe me when I say I don't suck his dick. But right now, I legitimately don't see anything that harms Joe Biden. Hunter, clearly trash. But Hunter has not been linked to Joe yet from what I have read. Well I also left the "big guy" email out of that post. In that email, it was stated that the big guy got a 10% cut of Hunter's Chinese business dealings. The big guy email must be read in conjunction with the NYT's finding that Hunter had a practice of avoiding referring to Joe by name in emails, and instead referred to Joe as Hunter's "guy." So that's not Hunter trying to manipulate people, that's Hunter saying his guy gets a cut. Similarly, in the other examples, I don't think it's Hunter trying to manipulate people, I think it's Hunter (or Hunter's partner) saying that Joe gets a cut. Besides I don't think Hunter would be trying to manipulate people into helping him by telling those people that Joe gets a cut of the proceeds. That wouldn't really convince those people to help Hunter. This is about Joe getting a cut of Hunter's foreign political consulting dealings - dealings that were predicated entirely on the fact that Joe Biden is Hunter's father. Are we assuming Hunter is being honest my implying "big guy" is Joe? From my perspective, everyone agrees Hunter is a rotten shit. Once we all agree on that, it feels silly to assume he is being totally honest saying Joe is the "big guy". If everything we are seeing is that Hunter tried to leverage his father's political career to score a bunch of money and drugs, it does not feel appropriate to assume he's being totally truthful with his implications regarding "big guy". If there is evidence Joe is "big guy", please correct me. But from everything I've seen, we know Hunter has tried to cash in on his dad's career but we don't actually have any evidence Biden was involved.
I would just say that the texts and emails provide direct evidence that Joe got a cut. The "guy" got a 10% cut (and again, Hunter had a practice of referring to Joe as the "guy"), "pop" demanded half of Hunter's salary, and Hunter's "dad" inquired to Hunter's business partner about his "future earnings potential."
|
On April 17 2022 14:38 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 14:18 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2022 14:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 13:35 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2022 13:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views. I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so. On April 17 2022 12:31 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 10:27 gobbledydook wrote:On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US.
I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven.
But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed.
Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens?
It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this? If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you. I have 1000 examples of people in the US pedaling political influence for money that are proven and apparently legal, that a politicans sons alluded to doing it possibly is not news. Not to mention last I checked people did not get in trouble for claiming their parents might be involved. So if he meant Joe, does that mean Joe was actually involved? Am I suposed to believe that Hunter is the most dishonest horrible person, but in this case honest and truthful? Am I to get worked up that Biden might have got a small payment? Kushner just got 2 billion, hoe much did the US gov pay at Trump resorts? Did all the foriegn nationals who switched their washington business to Trump properties after he got elected how much wss that, that is fine? We should probably check his taxes to see, oh they never came? Well he at least was not involved with his businesses while being president, oh he was? Is what Biden is being assumed to have done even illegal? Its so much less money then top lobbiests make or "donations" made. And not that either party is making and effort to tighten these horrible laws but the Reps are actively attempting to remove what little exists. The fake outrage about this or "emails" is so damn transparent its frustrating as hell. Have a tiny bit of logical consistency please. If Joe Biden has done something illegal by all means throw the book at him, but the amout of stupid conversations with the very same people who are all worked up about this, around horrible shit people have done and the proof is 10000x more clear, where the argument was "but legally that is not proven so it is allowed", to pretend some sort of moral high ground and arguement, come on. Apply the same burden of proof to basically every Republican that gets brought up here and they are all in jail for way longer terms. But you will not, not even close, so stop pretending to be victims and live up to the not very high standard of sourcing some proof of the claim and at least pretend to be upset when your team does the same and worse (heads up, its going to be a lot and very often.) If Joe used his influence to boost Hunter's political consulting activity and in return Joe took a cut, that is a potentially illegal corruption scheme. And that is so even if lobbying is corrupt and Trump is corrupt. (But I agree, Trump should be called out for corruption too.) The NYT has established that when Hunter wrote emails, he referred to Joe not by Joe's name but instead as Hunter's "guy": https://nyti.ms/3wd3MNf The NY Post recently reported on a text in which Hunter said "unlike pop, I won't make you give me half your salary": https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-revealSame story says Hunter's business partner emailed Hunter saying "your dad just called me and mentioned he'd be out a lot soon and not really back until Labor Day . . . He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential." There are other examples. This appears to show that Hunter tried to twist situations to manipulate people into thinking they'd benefit from helping him. Make no mistake, no one is saying Hunter Biden isn't a piece of shit. But until I see evidence of Biden actually contributing to the corruption, it appears to all be Hunter convincing people to give him free shit in hopes that Joe is in on the deal. I fully understand that I likely live in an insulated news-sphere that makes me not see the stuff you see. If I am wrong, please point it out. I think I have posted enough about Biden being an incompetent disappointment for you to believe me when I say I don't suck his dick. But right now, I legitimately don't see anything that harms Joe Biden. Hunter, clearly trash. But Hunter has not been linked to Joe yet from what I have read. Well I also left the "big guy" email out of that post. In that email, it was stated that the big guy got a 10% cut of Hunter's Chinese business dealings. The big guy email must be read in conjunction with the NYT's finding that Hunter had a practice of avoiding referring to Joe by name in emails, and instead referred to Joe as Hunter's "guy." So that's not Hunter trying to manipulate people, that's Hunter saying his guy gets a cut. Similarly, in the other examples, I don't think it's Hunter trying to manipulate people, I think it's Hunter (or Hunter's partner) saying that Joe gets a cut. Besides I don't think Hunter would be trying to manipulate people into helping him by telling those people that Joe gets a cut of the proceeds. That wouldn't really convince those people to help Hunter. This is about Joe getting a cut of Hunter's foreign political consulting dealings - dealings that were predicated entirely on the fact that Joe Biden is Hunter's father. Are we assuming Hunter is being honest my implying "big guy" is Joe? From my perspective, everyone agrees Hunter is a rotten shit. Once we all agree on that, it feels silly to assume he is being totally honest saying Joe is the "big guy". If everything we are seeing is that Hunter tried to leverage his father's political career to score a bunch of money and drugs, it does not feel appropriate to assume he's being totally truthful with his implications regarding "big guy". If there is evidence Joe is "big guy", please correct me. But from everything I've seen, we know Hunter has tried to cash in on his dad's career but we don't actually have any evidence Biden was involved. I would just say that the texts and emails provide direct evidence that Joe got a cut. The "guy" got a 10% cut (and again, Hunter had a practice of referring to Joe as the "guy"), "pop" demanded half of Hunter's salary, and Hunter's "dad" inquired to Hunter's business partner about his "future earnings potential."
This is not evidence at all. This is Hunter implying he does and using that to justify asking people to do things. We have already established he is a drug addict shit head. The idea that his word can be used as evidence is insanity. The whole point that people have driven home, with substantial evidence, is that Hunter is a worthless addict.
You can't have both and we already know one of them. Until there is evidence other than Hunter's word, there is no evidence.
|
It doesn't make sense that Hunter would try to convince people to do things by telling them Joe was going to get a cut of the proceeds. Joe getting a cut is not an incentive for those people to join Hunter's venture. As for Hunter's reliability as a witness, some of these emails/texts are not coming from Hunter but from his business partner.
I don't know, saying "Hunter is a crackhead so we can't trust him" sounds like a defense lawyer's last-ditch argument.
|
Double post, please delete.
|
On April 17 2022 15:11 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It doesn't make sense that Hunter would try to convince people to do things by telling them Joe was going to get a cut of the proceeds. Joe getting a cut is not an incentive for those people to join Hunter's venture. As for Hunter's reliability as a witness, some of these emails/texts are not coming from Hunter but from his business partner.
I don't know, saying "Hunter is a crackhead so we can't trust him" sounds like a defense lawyer's last-ditch argument.
It obviously does make sense. It implies his dad (1) knows what's happening and (2) approves of it. If it's just Hunter, then the Chinese know he's a drug-addicted failure. If it's Hunter acting with full support of his dad, then that's a different story. So yes, Hunter obviously has an incentive to claim his dad is getting a cut, because it makes his whole spiel more convincing, even (especially?) if his dad was completely ignorant of what was going on.
And just to be clear, if there's any evidence Joe was indeed involved, he should be impeached on the spot. I just haven't seen evidence of that anywhere.
|
You know what the beautiful thing is? Joe Biden’s taxes are public. So, go through his tax documents and find that 10% he got from his son. I’ll wait.
Shame that Trump could never release his.
That simple fact should really makes a person question why their reality says that Biden is the crook and not Trump.
|
On April 17 2022 08:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 03:22 Acrofales wrote:On April 17 2022 02:58 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? I think of things like Twitter and FB differently. Cable stations aren't places of public discussion in the same way these platforms (used to) say they were. It's automatically curated in the sense that only some people get to speak. That being said, I suspect that many of these deplatforming type moves that are made are not actually financially beneficial ones, but that there is either outside astroturf (which left wing activist groups have been much better at) or internal pressure from employees that makes its way up. I doubt anyone would drop DTV if they kept OAN but I bet people dropped them when OAN was removed. *** As to the other poster who said it was "content moderation." That phrase is avoided for more than one reason, but certainty no one would use it now because it would give the idea a bad name. They "moderated" a story about the contents of a device we now know are authentic. It doesn't speak well to these companies ability to decide what is and is not reliable. Comparing the Biden story to ad bots is quite frankly ridiculous but really funny. That's an interesting viewpoint. At the end of the day, Twitter and Facebook aren't places of public discussion any more than TL.net is. They are private companies providing a place for people to post content. I'd much prefer if they *were* a place of public discussion, because the government would be forced to do a *much* better job of regulating hate speech (at least over here in Europe) than Twitter and Facebook's rather laissez faire attitude until someone complains. That said, I do see some issues. What makes Twitter and Facebook public space and TL.net not? What about reddit? TikTok? 4chan? Stormfront? I don't really see anything categorically different between Facebook and 4chan, except size. Well ultimately TL is supposed to be a website around starcraft and now a few other games right? Everything else that gets discussed is extra. TL is relatively small and as far as I'm aware, doesn't claim to be a place of great public importance. And while I don't want to overstate the importance of twitter or FB, surely they are different by scale alone. But even so, I've opposed many ban decisions, but I don't think they are as important. Twitter and FB clearly think they are important to the public discussion, or else they wouldn't act they way they do. So in some sense TL is part of the "public square" but reach is smaller. set aside discussions about larger platforms smothering smaller ones... I oppose banning people or suppressing stories because someone suspects they might be insincere/false, respectively. Especially stories with relevance, e.g. stories about the president or his influence-peddling son. I would prefer more tools to let users curate their own feeds rather than have someone in the company decide what they see from on high. As for other options... well it's tough. I'm not a fan of government intervention, because as tempting as it might be sometimes, I just don't trust the people who would be doing the regulating. That's why it's important that when social media sites make big mistakes like this they get called out on it, hopefully even by people who suspect or just want the stories they don't like to be false. I know it's become fashionable to meme on "more speech=better speech" but perhaps that really is the best option. The only thing "content moderation" will do is allow "misinformation" from the side of the censor to be disseminated while blocking true/false information he objects to.
Would you say you could take your opinion to a different platform? One way to consider it is if you can't, then Facebook and Twitter might be a cartel preventing other social media from operating. However, Snapchat, TikTok and even LinkedIn appear to counter that idea. So if an opinion is "suppressed" by Twitter, can't you just go and talk about that idea elsewhere?
A bit like how TL.net consistently bans balance whines. Does this mean they suppress the idea that protoss is underpowered? Probably. Does it mean the idea is suppressed in "the public space?" I'd say no, despite TL.net being one of the, if not the single most important place to discuss StarCraft. It just means TL.net isn't the right venue to voice complaints about how badly the game is balanced.
And if Facebook or Twitter aren't the right venue for Trump to spew his drivel about the stolen election, or Milo Yiannopoulos to talk about how ugly the cast of the Ghostbusters remake is, then they can move that talk to a different platform.
Do I think that's a good idea? No. It'll just exacerbate the whole issue of information silos and echo chambers, which I feel is very harmful to society. But then again, I don't believe in the free marketplace of ideas in the first place. Ultimately some ideas are too abhorrent to be allowed to get a foothold. So yes, spewing white power (or for that matter, Islamic jihad) propaganda should be forbidden, not just from Twitter/Facebook, but from *all* of the internet. I don't agree that Twitter/Facebook should be the judge of what content should/shouldn't be allowed, but I support their right to be *more* restrictive than the minimum bar. Unfortunately, I feel that right now they are not even meeting the minimum bar on hate speech (while banning high profile other stuff). So government needs to take a more active role in regulating the content moderation.
|
On April 17 2022 15:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 15:11 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It doesn't make sense that Hunter would try to convince people to do things by telling them Joe was going to get a cut of the proceeds. Joe getting a cut is not an incentive for those people to join Hunter's venture. As for Hunter's reliability as a witness, some of these emails/texts are not coming from Hunter but from his business partner.
I don't know, saying "Hunter is a crackhead so we can't trust him" sounds like a defense lawyer's last-ditch argument. It obviously does make sense. It implies his dad (1) knows what's happening and (2) approves of it. If it's just Hunter, then the Chinese know he's a drug-addicted failure. If it's Hunter acting with full support of his dad, then that's a different story. So yes, Hunter obviously has an incentive to claim his dad is getting a cut, because it makes his whole spiel more convincing, even (especially?) if his dad was completely ignorant of what was going on.And just to be clear, if there's any evidence Joe was indeed involved, he should be impeached on the spot. I just haven't seen evidence of that anywhere.
I agree. Its naive thinking to assume even if were in an email its true. Theres incentive for Hunter to make people think his dad would be in on any deals.
|
This just sounds like you trying to make every excuse to exclude Joe Biden from guilt.
It's possible, of course, that you are right and that Hunter is pretending his dad is involved when he is not.
But you would have no problem pinning the blame on Trump, because you don't like him.
If that's not bias I don't know what is.
|
On April 17 2022 20:42 gobbledydook wrote:
This just sounds like you trying to make every excuse to exclude Joe Biden from guilt.
It's possible, of course, that you are right and that Hunter is pretending his dad is involved when he is not.
But you would have no problem pinning the blame on Trump, because you don't like him.
If that's not bias I don't know what is.
The republicans operate exclusively in bad faith. They have to win back any benefit of the doubt from me and a MAJORITY of the US public.
Its not bias. Joe Biden gets the benefit of the doubt until there is evidence otherwise. If most republicans in government and their media shills didnt behave like scumbags 24/7 theyd get the same benefit of the doubt too but they lost any credibility long ago.
|
On April 17 2022 16:02 Acrofales wrote:
Would you say you could take your opinion to a different platform? One way to consider it is if you can't, then Facebook and Twitter might be a cartel preventing other social media from operating. However, Snapchat, TikTok and even LinkedIn appear to counter that idea. So if an opinion is "suppressed" by Twitter, can't you just go and talk about that idea elsewhere?
I don't think you can, honestly. These companies are so influential, and their spheres so specialised, that I think it's a real mistake to consider them interchangeably. Every individual commentator is totally dependent on the network effects that each giant builds, controls and maintains, and those effects do not transfer between them at all.
Look at Trump's twitter ban itself. This had a huge impact on his reach in the days after the insurrection, and was a very important step in the wind-down and recovery. However, it's also a situation where the President of the United States was meaningfully affected by the measure you're hoping to make more common. It demonstrates very clearly the seriousness and the stickiness of the thing we're proposing. If the actual POTUS couldn't simply switch to another platform, Joe Citizen can't either.
Obviously, I think Trump's ban was wholly justified, and I do think some form of moderation is needed in general, but if we're going to try and design that, we have to do so fully aware of the near-monopoly on areas of public discourse that these companies all possess. A ban from any platform totally severs the person from their audience, and that audience can be almost impossible to rebuild elsewhere. It doesn't help to pretend we can just go to a different cake shop if they refuse to serve us.
|
|
|
On April 17 2022 15:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 15:11 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It doesn't make sense that Hunter would try to convince people to do things by telling them Joe was going to get a cut of the proceeds. Joe getting a cut is not an incentive for those people to join Hunter's venture. As for Hunter's reliability as a witness, some of these emails/texts are not coming from Hunter but from his business partner.
I don't know, saying "Hunter is a crackhead so we can't trust him" sounds like a defense lawyer's last-ditch argument. It obviously does make sense. It implies his dad (1) knows what's happening and (2) approves of it. If it's just Hunter, then the Chinese know he's a drug-addicted failure. If it's Hunter acting with full support of his dad, then that's a different story. So yes, Hunter obviously has an incentive to claim his dad is getting a cut, because it makes his whole spiel more convincing, even (especially?) if his dad was completely ignorant of what was going on.And just to be clear, if there's any evidence Joe was indeed involved, he should be impeached on the spot. I just haven't seen evidence of that anywhere.
The problem with this argument is that even if it were true, it doesn't really explain away the evidence. I looked at the big guy email and it was actually written by Hunter's business partner, not Hunter. The partner is listing who gets and he says 10% for the big guy to be held by H. We also have:
- Hunter complaining to a family member that "pop" demands "half his salary" (this does not have to do with Hunter trying to convince people to enter a venture, and it corroborates the big guy email).
- Hunter's business partner saying to Hunter that Joe called the partner and inquired about Joe's "future earnings potential" (this again does not have to do with Hunter trying to convince people, and it again corroborates the big guy email).
- other docs show that Hunter & Joe shared banks accounts.
- one of Hunter's former partners went on national TV and said explicitly that the big guy is Joe.
It's the totality of evidence for me. Your argument would only explain the big guy email, but the other evidence corroborates the bug guy email, and the big guy email wasn't written by Hunter.
|
On April 17 2022 22:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 15:34 Acrofales wrote:On April 17 2022 15:11 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It doesn't make sense that Hunter would try to convince people to do things by telling them Joe was going to get a cut of the proceeds. Joe getting a cut is not an incentive for those people to join Hunter's venture. As for Hunter's reliability as a witness, some of these emails/texts are not coming from Hunter but from his business partner.
I don't know, saying "Hunter is a crackhead so we can't trust him" sounds like a defense lawyer's last-ditch argument. It obviously does make sense. It implies his dad (1) knows what's happening and (2) approves of it. If it's just Hunter, then the Chinese know he's a drug-addicted failure. If it's Hunter acting with full support of his dad, then that's a different story. So yes, Hunter obviously has an incentive to claim his dad is getting a cut, because it makes his whole spiel more convincing, even (especially?) if his dad was completely ignorant of what was going on.And just to be clear, if there's any evidence Joe was indeed involved, he should be impeached on the spot. I just haven't seen evidence of that anywhere. The problem with this argument is that even if it were true, it doesn't really explain away the evidence. I looked at the big guy email and it was actually written by Hunter's business partner, not Hunter. The partner is listing who gets and he says 10% for the big guy to be held by H. We also have: - Hunter complaining to a family member that "pop" demands "half his salary" (this does not have to do with Hunter trying to convince people to enter a venture, and it corroborates the big guy email). - Hunter's business partner saying to Hunter that Joe called the partner and inquired about Joe's "future earnings potential" (this again does not have to do with Hunter trying to convince people, and it again corroborates the big guy email). - other docs show that Hunter & Joe shared banks accounts. - one of Hunter's former partners went on national TV and said explicitly that the big guy is Joe. It's the totality of evidence for me. Your argument would only explain the big guy email, but the other evidence corroborates the bug guy email, and the big guy email wasn't written by Hunter.
Show me the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
