|
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 March 12 2025 05:51 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:48 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 05:40 Artesimo wrote:On March 12 2025 05:33 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail. Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing. The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country. Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual. Why does this backwards logic always make an appearance here? How is being threatened with jail for not complying with censorship rulings not a freedom of speech issue? We saw the same thing during the COVID thread with people posting ridiculous things like "Nobody is forced to get a vaccine, you can refuse and accept the consequences like losing your job." If the government is compelling you to do something under threat of punishment then it's an absurd thing to say you're still allowed to do it if you just accept the consequences in order to claim your personal liberty is not being effected. Every now and then its good to remind yourself as an american that your countries interpretation of freedom of speech is not an universal truth. Irrelevant. His statement was "The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while operating in said country." Whether American freedom of speech is a universal truth is irrelevant. You wouldn't say someone that gets hanged for insulting Kim Jong Un has nothing to do with freedom of speech because in North Korea their laws say you can't insult the glorious leader. (I have no idea if that's true or not, just a hypothetical example.) Yes you can argue that "legally" they are allowed to hang that person but that doesn't magically negate whether it's a freedom of speech issue or even whether it's just. It is, because as soon as you accept that there can be limits to freedom of speech besides the one you are used to, without immediately jumping to censorship, your argument probably falls apart. Because at that point, its the equivalent of me complaining that a german company is prosecuted for breaking US law while operating there.
If the German company is prosecuted because they didn’t pay their taxes then it’s not a freedom of speech issue. If they are prosecuted because they didn’t sufficiently censor posts and deplatform users from their social media forum then it is a freedom of speech issue. Like seriously how is this even contested?
|
On March 12 2025 06:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:51 Artesimo wrote:On March 12 2025 05:48 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 05:40 Artesimo wrote:On March 12 2025 05:33 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail. Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing. The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country. Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual. Why does this backwards logic always make an appearance here? How is being threatened with jail for not complying with censorship rulings not a freedom of speech issue? We saw the same thing during the COVID thread with people posting ridiculous things like "Nobody is forced to get a vaccine, you can refuse and accept the consequences like losing your job." If the government is compelling you to do something under threat of punishment then it's an absurd thing to say you're still allowed to do it if you just accept the consequences in order to claim your personal liberty is not being effected. Every now and then its good to remind yourself as an american that your countries interpretation of freedom of speech is not an universal truth. Irrelevant. His statement was "The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while operating in said country." Whether American freedom of speech is a universal truth is irrelevant. You wouldn't say someone that gets hanged for insulting Kim Jong Un has nothing to do with freedom of speech because in North Korea their laws say you can't insult the glorious leader. (I have no idea if that's true or not, just a hypothetical example.) Yes you can argue that "legally" they are allowed to hang that person but that doesn't magically negate whether it's a freedom of speech issue or even whether it's just. It is, because as soon as you accept that there can be limits to freedom of speech besides the one you are used to, without immediately jumping to censorship, your argument probably falls apart. Because at that point, its the equivalent of me complaining that a german company is prosecuted for breaking US law while operating there. If the German company is prosecuted because they didn’t pay their taxes then it’s not a freedom of speech issue. If they are prosecuted because they didn’t sufficiently censor posts and deplatform users from their social media forum then it is a freedom of speech issue. Like seriously how is this even contested?
Because again, not everyone shares your opinion on freedom of speech. Or shall I find some crazy who believes you should be allowed to shout "RUN THERE IS A BOMB" in a crowded venue and point to the ensuing legal consequences as proof that the US does not have freedom of speech / he is being censored by the evil republicans in power?
It absolutely boils down to what I initially said about the US interpretation of freedom of speech not being an universal truth. Its just one interpretation that leaves a lot of room to stray from before you enter censorship territory.
Unless you are a free speech absolutist who should be out there fighting for the right to scream bomb, I don't think you got much ground here.
|
Northern Ireland26017 Posts
On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea.
Having literally done so myself, hypocrisy is a big problem of our political epoch IMO. Too eager to find it in others, not eager to address our own.
I don’t really know anything about Brazilian Twitter staff or Canadian truckers.
More broadly, ‘censorship’ is too often treated as some monolithic phenomenon, when it’s anything but.
My personal stance is a private individual should be able to think or say whatever the fuck. If someone doesn’t want to employ or book them because of what they say, that’s their right.
As for social media platforms, I’ve posted variants of the same thing for years. I imagine regulars are bored of it at this stage, but can attest! For the refresh.
1. I think broadly, provided it doesn’t infringe on various laws, or be legit harassment, I think the unpalatable opinion should largely be left to fester. But perhaps not the untrue. If you wanna say ‘I don’t like black people’, you should be free to do so and face the social consequences. But say, if there’s some story that’s completely fabricated that a group of young black men gang raped and murdered a white lass, nah, didn’t happen. And no good things can come from people believing that it did.
2. With that in mind, I would broadly consider social media networks to be held to the same regulatory standards as newspapers, or broadcast media.
3. It is incredibly practically difficult to actually do point 2 reliably. We haven’t cracked that problem. But I don’t think my proposed framework is bad.
The only active hypocrites on show here are ‘free speech absolutists’ like Elon Musk, because they make a simple claim and don’t deliver on it. ‘Allow everything’ (basically) is really, really easy to stick to.
Many of us may appear what I’ll call passive hypocrites, and fair enough, that may on occasion be the case. But by this I mean, it’s very difficult to construct a framework that tries to balance various factors, that is 100% reliable and catches every single edge case.
Speaking of Musk I’d rather him be fired into the sun on one of his own rockets Dr Strangelove style , I don’t think he should be deported though. I’m sure many would like that, given he’s a complete ballbag, you’re likely right there.
Personally, as I’ve said in the Musk thread I think he should be extricated from the US state, and offered something like the deal TikTok was before Trump backpedaled.
|
Literally everyone rightly acknowledges that not being able to cause a panic is a freedom of speech issue. Specifically it’s a limitation of freedom of speech. Your argument that this is not a freedom of speech issue is to cite one of the most famous freedom of speech issues of all time…?
|
On March 12 2025 06:44 BlackJack wrote:
Literally everyone rightly acknowledges that not being able to cause a panic is a freedom of speech issue. Specifically it’s a limitation of freedom of speech. Your argument that this is not a freedom of speech issue is to cite one of the most famous freedom of speech issues of all time…?
It is not an "issue" because everyone agrees that it is a very sensible limitation on freedom of speech. So we worked through the first step of accepting that there can be limits on freedom of speech without being an issue, or shouting censorship.
And that is all you guys have usually in these arguments. "Any limitation on freedom of speech that I don't like is evil censorship". Either declare that you believe you should be allowed to cause panic, or accept the idea that you can limit freedom of speech without it being an "issue" in any practical or pragmatic sense of the word.
|
Again. Gorsameths statement was that “this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.”
Even proposing the argument that this is a sensible limitation on freedom of speech is a contradiction to that statement.
|
On March 12 2025 07:01 BlackJack wrote:
Again. Gorsameths statement was that “this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.”
Even proposing the argument that this is a sensible limitation on freedom of speech is a contradiction to that statement.
Because there was no issue regarding freedom of speech there, which is how I understood that claim, and I think that was clear from my responses.
Though if I had to larp as someone caring about impractical semantics, I would agree to the statement that the topic falls under freedom of speech, but freedom of speech wasn't an issue there, and certainly not censorship, and I'll leave it at that. 
|
Blackjack. Do you acknowledge that we live in a society where we have all signed a social contract to try to appease each other in one way or another. What I mean by this is that we don't go about our day,disturbing each other, so that we can all more or less do our own thing? This means that we experiment what is passable and what isn't passable as a societal norm and when we find something not passable, like killing or raping or stealing or causing a panic, we kind of collectively go: "yeah that's probably not such a good idea".
Moreover, the freedom of speech you have, or that you think you have, was always an illusion. The state is always the arbiter on what that is and what its limits are. It's always retractable, expandable, nullifiable or antithetical. You don't have any freedom. You only have allowed freedom.
|
They were held in contempt of court for failing to follow court orders.
Then Twitter got banned because they closed their offices and the law requires you to have an office in Brazil if you conduct business there.
The activist is/may have his green card revoked not over failing to abide by the law/courts but because he was part of a protest.
If Mahmoud Khalil had been ignoring court orders you could make a comparison between the cases. As far as anyone seems to know, he has not.
Orange meet apple.
|
On March 12 2025 07:14 Uldridge wrote:
Blackjack. Do you acknowledge that we live in a society where we have all signed a social contract to try to appease each other in one way or another. What I mean by this is that we don't go about our day,disturbing each other, so that we can all more or less do our own thing? This means that we experiment what is passable and what isn't passable as a societal norm and when we find something not passable, like killing or raping or stealing or causing a panic, we kind of collectively go: "yeah that's probably not such a good idea".
Moreover, the freedom of speech you have, or that you think you have, was always an illusion. The state is always the arbiter on what that is and what its limits are. It's always retractable, expandable, nullifiable or antithetical. You don't have any freedom. You only have allowed freedom.
Obviously. Is there a point to this?
|
On March 12 2025 07:16 Gorsameth wrote:
They were held in contempt of court for failing to follow court orders.
Then Twitter got banned because they closed their offices and the law requires you to have an office in Brazil if you conduct business there.
The activist is/may have his green card revoked not over failing to abide by the law/courts but because he was part of a protest.
If Mahmoud Khalil had been ignoring court orders you could make a comparison between the cases. As far as anyone seems to know, he has not.
Orange meet apple.
So your issue with the government targeting people for their political speech is not an objection on principle but simply that they should go through the proper channels for it? So if Trump and the Republicans passed a law and the courts upheld the banishment of the pro-Palestinian protestor you would totally shrug your shoulders and be like “yeah what’s the big deal, he ignored the courts orders and he should be deported. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.” I find that crazy. See for me it’s an apples to apples because I think the government targeting people for their political speech is wrong whether it’s done judicially or extrajudicially. You seem to be okay with it as long as they dot the I’s and cross the t’s.
|
On March 12 2025 07:19 BlackJack wrote:
Obviously. Is there a point to this?
So what are you actually arguing about? Semantics?
|
United States43210 Posts
Blackjack, their argument is that given you believe that there should be exceptions to free speech and that policing those exceptions isn’t censorship, or at least isn’t problematic censorship, you don’t actually have a point. You brought up NK as an example of the issues with “we’re just policing exceptions” but the thing you actually have an issue with isn’t NK. It’s not anything like NK.
You’re using black to disprove the existence of grey while also admitting the existence of grey.
|
On March 12 2025 07:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 07:16 Gorsameth wrote:
They were held in contempt of court for failing to follow court orders.
Then Twitter got banned because they closed their offices and the law requires you to have an office in Brazil if you conduct business there.
The activist is/may have his green card revoked not over failing to abide by the law/courts but because he was part of a protest.
If Mahmoud Khalil had been ignoring court orders you could make a comparison between the cases. As far as anyone seems to know, he has not.
Orange meet apple. So your issue with the government targeting people for their political speech is not an objection on principle but simply that they should go through the proper channels for it? So if Trump and the Republicans passed a law and the courts upheld the banishment of the pro-Palestinian protestor you would totally shrug your shoulders and be like “yeah what’s the big deal, he ignored the courts orders and he should be deported. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.” I find that crazy. See for me it’s an apples to apples because I think the government targeting people for their political speech is wrong whether it’s done judicially or extrajudicially. You seem to be okay with it as long as they dot the I’s and cross the t’s. Id argue against the law, not the following of it.
If the US had a law against flag burning, I would think its silly but if people then go burning flags and getting arrested for it you knew what was going to happen. And if you do it as a form of protest then I believe part of civil disobedience is also the possible consequences of your disobedience.
I don't think the government should be deporting Mahmoud Khalil just because he was part of a protest. But if Trump wants to try to do it anyway then yes he should go through the proper channels and await the courts decision rather then try to sneak him out of the country before he can defend himself.
And in a functional system dotting the I's and crossing the t's are the checks on abuse of power. Sometimes someone can actually be a danger. Maybe Mahmoud Khalil is an actual member of Hamas and a security risk to keep inside the US and he should be deported. But then let the government prove that.
Sometimes I wish it wasn't like that. I would have much preferred if Trump had simply been put up against a wall and shot for treason back on jan 21st 2021 but the system is there for good reason, even if it sometimes doesn't work like it should.
|
Northern Ireland26017 Posts
On March 12 2025 07:46 Uldridge wrote:So what are you actually arguing about? Semantics?
Blackjack has never been known to indulge in semantics, far as I know anyway
|
On March 12 2025 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 07:26 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 07:16 Gorsameth wrote:
They were held in contempt of court for failing to follow court orders.
Then Twitter got banned because they closed their offices and the law requires you to have an office in Brazil if you conduct business there.
The activist is/may have his green card revoked not over failing to abide by the law/courts but because he was part of a protest.
If Mahmoud Khalil had been ignoring court orders you could make a comparison between the cases. As far as anyone seems to know, he has not.
Orange meet apple. So your issue with the government targeting people for their political speech is not an objection on principle but simply that they should go through the proper channels for it? So if Trump and the Republicans passed a law and the courts upheld the banishment of the pro-Palestinian protestor you would totally shrug your shoulders and be like “yeah what’s the big deal, he ignored the courts orders and he should be deported. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.” I find that crazy. See for me it’s an apples to apples because I think the government targeting people for their political speech is wrong whether it’s done judicially or extrajudicially. You seem to be okay with it as long as they dot the I’s and cross the t’s. Id argue against the law, not the following of it. If the US had a law against flag burning, I would think its silly but if people then go burning flags and getting arrested for it you knew what was going to happen. And if you do it as a form of protest then I believe part of civil disobedience is also the possible consequences of your disobedience. I don't think the government should be deporting Mahmoud Khalil just because he was part of a protest. But if Trump wants to try to do it anyway then yes he should go through the proper channels and await the courts decision rather then try to sneak him out of the country before he can defend himself. And in a functional system dotting the I's and crossing the t's are the checks on abuse of power. Sometimes someone can actually be a danger. Maybe Mahmoud Khalil is an actual member of Hamas and a security risk to keep inside the US and he should be deported. But then let the government prove that. Sometimes I wish it wasn't like that. I would have much preferred if Trump had simply been put up against a wall and shot for treason back on jan 21st 2021 but the system is there for good reason, even if it sometimes doesn't work like it should.
Massive shift of the goal posts. Nobody is arguing on whether or not we should “follow the law.” Your argument was that Twitters refusal to delete and deplatform anyone the government demands has nothing to do with free speech.
Similarly with your flag burning analogy you would have to conclude that anyone jailed for burning a flag has nothing to do with free speech because they were simply jailed for “violating the law.” It’s an absurd piece of catch-all logic in order to be an apologist for any government entity that wants to make any limitation on free speech.
|
Flip the script and let’s pretend that the US passed a law or constitutional amendment giving Trumps Supreme Court authority to demand posts be deleted and users be banned. Let’s imagine John Robert’s first order of business is to demand Nazgûl ban Gorsameth and arrest any TL.net representatives in the US if they fail to do so because Gorsameth is a danger to the union.
Does anyone believe Gorsameth would be saying “This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with Nazgûl failing to comply with lawful court orders to ban me.”
Does anyone think we’d have posts like Nazgûl needs to understand that Dutch interpretation of freedom of speech doesn’t apply universally?
Right… I’m sure there would be no mention of fascism… or freedom of speech…
|
On March 12 2025 08:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 07:26 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 07:16 Gorsameth wrote:
They were held in contempt of court for failing to follow court orders.
Then Twitter got banned because they closed their offices and the law requires you to have an office in Brazil if you conduct business there.
The activist is/may have his green card revoked not over failing to abide by the law/courts but because he was part of a protest.
If Mahmoud Khalil had been ignoring court orders you could make a comparison between the cases. As far as anyone seems to know, he has not.
Orange meet apple. So your issue with the government targeting people for their political speech is not an objection on principle but simply that they should go through the proper channels for it? So if Trump and the Republicans passed a law and the courts upheld the banishment of the pro-Palestinian protestor you would totally shrug your shoulders and be like “yeah what’s the big deal, he ignored the courts orders and he should be deported. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.” I find that crazy. See for me it’s an apples to apples because I think the government targeting people for their political speech is wrong whether it’s done judicially or extrajudicially. You seem to be okay with it as long as they dot the I’s and cross the t’s. Id argue against the law, not the following of it. If the US had a law against flag burning, I would think its silly but if people then go burning flags and getting arrested for it you knew what was going to happen. And if you do it as a form of protest then I believe part of civil disobedience is also the possible consequences of your disobedience. I don't think the government should be deporting Mahmoud Khalil just because he was part of a protest. But if Trump wants to try to do it anyway then yes he should go through the proper channels and await the courts decision rather then try to sneak him out of the country before he can defend himself. And in a functional system dotting the I's and crossing the t's are the checks on abuse of power. Sometimes someone can actually be a danger. Maybe Mahmoud Khalil is an actual member of Hamas and a security risk to keep inside the US and he should be deported. But then let the government prove that. Sometimes I wish it wasn't like that. I would have much preferred if Trump had simply been put up against a wall and shot for treason back on jan 21st 2021 but the system is there for good reason, even if it sometimes doesn't work like it should. Massive shift of the goal posts. Nobody is arguing on whether or not we should “follow the law.” Your argument was that Twitters refusal to delete and deplatform anyone the government demands has nothing to do with free speech. Similarly with your flag burning analogy you would have to conclude that anyone jailed for burning a flag has nothing to do with free speech because they were simply jailed for “violating the law.” It’s an absurd piece of catch-all logic in order to be an apologist for any government entity that wants to make any limitation on free speech.
Doesn't sound like he shifted the goalposts to me. Just that he clarified his stance rather than harping on about "but free speech" like you have for 3 pages now. The Twitter guys weren't in trouble for freedom of speech. They were in trouble for disobeying a court order they disagreed with. We could have a discussion about the laws (or rather, the far-reaching, even extrajudicial, power bestowed upon the judge in question), but that is a discussion we already had back in the day, and we aren't interested in rehashing it. The case in Brazil was clear: there were laws and Twitter was breaking them.
Similarly, maybe Mahmoud Khalil broke a bunch of laws and the legal punishment for that is revoking his green card. I don't know what laws those might be. Maybe they can argue it in court. If so, we can have a discussion about whether those laws are just, which would be a discussion about free speech and its limitations. But insofar as we know, these laws don't actually exist, meaning it isn't a question of free speech, but rather one of government overreach.
|
On March 12 2025 08:45 BlackJack wrote:
Flip the script and let’s pretend that the US passed a law or constitutional amendment giving Trumps Supreme Court authority to demand posts be deleted and users be banned. Let’s imagine John Robert’s first order of business is to demand Nazgûl ban Gorsameth and arrest any TL.net representatives in the US if they fail to do so because Gorsameth is a danger to the union.
Does anyone believe Gorsameth would be saying “This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with Nazgûl failing to comply with lawful court orders to ban me.”
Does anyone think we’d have posts like Nazgûl needs to understand that Dutch interpretation of freedom of speech doesn’t apply universally?
Right… I’m sure there would be no mention of fascism… or freedom of speech…
I haven't looked into this guy's case in particular but since we are posting about laws now and their intersection with free speech I would point out that the power to deport someone is quite strong. If this guy was *merely* saying Israel was a genocidal state than I would wish he was never allowed here but would probably be against deporting him. Again though, don't know what he actually did. Students who do break the law, by either taking over buildings or harassing Jewish students should probably be deported though. I'm not a 60s leftist. But you are right, there is a huge double standard here. I won't weep if any of these people are deported the only reason I worry precisely because the shoe is often on the other foot. A lesson many on the left are incapable of learning. I think it must be a core, if unstated and subliminal, part of that worldview.
|
Sorry for changing the subject to something way off topic here guys...
Trump said he respected Doug Ford's decision to back off of 25% export tariffs on electricity. Some nice diplomacy on Trump's part.
Ford should direct the LCBO to put American alcohol back on its shelves. The people of Kentucky and Tennessee should not be collateral damage in this trade dispute.
On March 12 2025 09:10 Introvert wrote:
Again though, don't know what he actually did. Students who do break the law, by either taking over buildings or harassing Jewish students should probably be deported though.
The reality is Jews have to weigh the probability of being killed any place they go. Always been that way and it will never change. People saying "well it shouldn't be that way" are not helping.
The imperfect solution is to find the best, yet imperfect locale and go and live there.
It is fascinating how foreign this approach is to many posters on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
