God help us thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

david g ranes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
409

Removing the bill would make sources like longrangehunting.com liable for things that it's userspost instead of shielding the website and forcing suits to be direct to whomever originated the post. (which is currently how it works)

Removing it will lead to to major and somewhat immediate sensorship from websites and social media outlets of anything they think may land them in any sort of of a lawsuit.

Removing it would allow political leaders, corporations, and others to sue websites and social media outlets for content that users of those places share that said leaders, corporations and other find personally offensive/unflattering/hurtful.

Removing it would mean that if I quoted the above post, and another user on here saw it and was offended I could be liable for any lawsuits brought to bear even though I didn't create the post, and it wouldnt matter if I quoted it to agree with it or to disagree with it. Only that I quoted it.

If it gets repealed it will have a huge negative effect on our freedoms of speech and expression on the internet.

Please read up on it before you make a decision.

The following link is from the electronic frontier foundation. They're basically the NRA for the internet. They are constantly working to keep the internet from being censored and controlled by governments and corporations.

I’m grandfathered in on freedom of speech by 65 years they can kiss it. David
 

Ol' Red

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
366
Location
Wyoming
This has been a most interesting thread. I would like to say thank you to David for starting it and thank to Len for not stopping it. I am not trying to change the direction here, but would like to pose a question. With the internal strife in the NRA at this time, is there another organization that I could join that will help fight for our second amendment rights? I will still be a member of the NRA, but there has to be more I can do. Or should this be a different thread?
 

antelopedundee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
942
Location
Iowa

Removing the bill would make sources like longrangehunting.com liable for things that it's userspost instead of shielding the website and forcing suits to be direct to whomever originated the post. (which is currently how it works)

Removing it will lead to to major and somewhat immediate sensorship from websites and social media outlets of anything they think may land them in any sort of of a lawsuit.

Removing it would allow political leaders, corporations, and others to sue websites and social media outlets for content that users of those places share that said leaders, corporations and other find personally offensive/unflattering/hurtful.

Removing it would mean that if I quoted the above post, and another user on here saw it and was offended I could be liable for any lawsuits brought to bear even though I didn't create the post, and it wouldnt matter if I quoted it to agree with it or to disagree with it. Only that I quoted it.

If it gets repealed it will have a huge negative effect on our freedoms of speech and expression on the internet.

Please read up on it before you make a decision.

The following link is from the electronic frontier foundation. They're basically the NRA for the internet. They are constantly working to keep the internet from being censored and controlled by governments and corporations.

Does anyone think this [or similar sites] site should be liable if one member scams another simply because this site provided the venue for the deal? Probably would also be a good idea to be able to back up with facts stuff that you post.
 

Ol' Red

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
366
Location
Wyoming
Does anyone think this [or similar sites] site should be liable if one member scams another simply because this site provided the venue for the deal? Probably would also be a good idea to be able to back up with facts stuff that you post.
The site should not be held responsible for members transgressions or scams. Just as the firearms manufacture should not be responsible for what a poacher does.
 

FrogFire7

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
354
Location
Pennsylvania
No, ALL media is biased. All people even.

Will they edit CNN? No they will censor them.



I'm going to go out on a (short) limb and say that they (CNN) would NOT be censored...




Humans are basically incapable of not being biased. Even trying not to be, there is almost always some amount of unconscious bias going on. It's part of how our brains work to make decisions. No company will ever be perfect, and some are better than others. But none are truly unbiased.

Facebook is biased against conservatives, fox News is biased against liberals.


I'm pretty positive that neither of those companies are unintentionally biased lol. Are people as individuals unintentionally biased? Yes, maybe. But the direction of both of those entities was not steered unintentially.
 

XSIVSPD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
536
Location
Palmer, AK
@FrogFire7

I'm pretty positive that neither of those companies are unintentionally biased lol. Are people as individuals unintentionally biased? Yes, maybe. But the direction of both of those entities was not steered unintentially.

I'm pretty sure we all know this. I was using them as an example that bias is on both sides of this. So while the current controlling political party would be able to effectively controll what Facebook allows/spreads the next could control fox news the same way.

I'm going to go out on a (short) limb and say that they (CNN) would NOT be censored...

They could if they wanted to if this passes. Why do you think so many news outlets are based in the USA? It's because of the limits that we've placed government censure. Getting rid of these hurts not only us, but the rest of the world too.

I'm not sure how people can reconcile their no infringement ideals on the the 2nd ammendment with being okay with it on the 1st.
 

Hugnot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Messages
252
Location
Montana
Justice is blind. We have a court system ending at SCOTUS and liability/slander laws. Termination of the existing 230 will not allow congress to run Twitter but will provide relief to those damaged and restricted by Twitter.

I see increasing PC progressively strangling our inalienable rights, including the 2nd A, and autocratic big media like Twitter is a vehicle for the PC movement. Big media, like Twitter, is a monopoly of words & thoughts, an auxiliary non-elected, no-constitutional government in addition to our real government. Big media, including Twitter, intends to re-educate and direct policy towards certain objectives favoring selected groups or political parties and does not deserve immunity & protection.

CNN and Twitter would continue to enjoy 1st Amendment protections - congress would not require Twitter or CNN to get approval for their policies by creating some censorship board or blue ribbon panel. Our press has always been free of government control.

We have many news outlets in our country because our citizens need to be informed and select or reject what they think is appropriate. Our court system enables the continuation of a vigorous and free press independent of government meddling.

Fox News & CNN will always follow their own news policies because of 1st Amendment protections. Viewer participation and advertising money will ultimately determine the direction of Fox News & CNN (both liberal entities).
 

Treeslug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2020
Messages
362
Location
New Braunfels, Texas
No, ALL media is biased. All people even.

Will they edit CNN? No they will censor them.

Humans are basically incapable of not being biased. Even trying not to be, there is almost always some amount of unconscious bias going on. It's part of how our brains work to make decisions. No company will ever be perfect, and some are better than others. But none are truly unbiased.

Facebook is biased against conservatives, fox News is biased against liberals.

Allowing the government to be in control of censorship of speech is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
I am not bigoted, but I am very biased. I don't have to know you to dislike you, but it helps.
 

Orange Dust

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
1,792
Location
Mingo Swamp
They will ultimately end up with a law that favors their donors, their base, and themselves. Whoever is in charge gets it passed. It is the Washington way. they feel no obligation to represent us, only to pander to us near election time. The problem is FB and Twitter are not acting like a forum like this one. In a forum everyone is free to speak their mind, and as long as they remain civil to each other it usually stays up. They are acting like publishers, selectively editing and silencing those that do not enhance their point of view. This is the issue. They were given the protections of a forum, but are acting pike publishers. Whatever goes down you can bet your Kestrel it will favor the Tech giants and punish everyone else.
 

Treeslug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2020
Messages
362
Location
New Braunfels, Texas
They will ultimately end up with a law that favors their donors, their base, and themselves. Whoever is in charge gets it passed. It is the Washington way. they feel no obligation to represent us, only to pander to us near election time. The problem is FB and Twitter are not acting like a forum like this one. In a forum everyone is free to speak their mind, and as long as they remain civil to each other it usually stays up. They are acting like publishers, selectively editing and silencing those that do not enhance their point of view. This is the issue. They were given the protections of a forum, but are acting pike publishers. Whatever goes down you can bet your Kestrel it will favor the Tech giants and punish everyone else.
Orange Dust,

Danged if you aren't one smart and articulate person. (wouldn't want to presume your gender) I enjoy reading your posts, and your point of view pretty much mirrors mine. ( wouldn't want to presume that your POV mirrors mine--I am a different sorta duck) "they feel no obligation to represent us." I do not believe we can change that fact. That monster has grown too big!
 

Treeslug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2020
Messages
362
Location
New Braunfels, Texas
I am neither, nor am I racist, but I am prejudiced. I don't like socialists, no matter their race, nationality, sexual preference or religion
I am extremely prejudiced! I dislike radicals of all persuasions. There are radical extremists of some races and religions that openly hate me because of the color of my skin and because I am an infidel. I am not going to apologize for my contempt for those who hate for those reasons. Brevity keeps me from elaborating further.
 
Last edited:

Treeslug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2020
Messages
362
Location
New Braunfels, Texas
I'm not sure the of the reason for, or the point, of this comment...?
I left the comment ambiguous intentionally. I made the comment because this post has drifted in the direction of media bias, and I wanted in on the conversation. No real reason other than to stir up some comments. It already seems to be working. Feel free to engage--or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Primary

LRH Assistant
Here are some related products that LRH members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to LRH’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to LRH discussions about these products.

 
 
Top