Updated
Thing I learned, in a horrible Twitter exchange on the question of whether Facebook was violating the First Amendment in banning Alex Jones, is that to wingnuts, "white nationalist" simply means "nationalist (i.e. patriotic American) who is white":
They got super mad at me for telling them the truth!
Golly Moses!
If you need to know, the reason Facebook and Twitter bans don't violate the First Amendment is that they aren't Congress; they are public accommodations, and they can write laws abridging the freedom of such press as depends on them any time they want, as long as they do it in such as way as not to discriminate against protected categories, or pretty much against anybody who doesn't endanger the business or the civic peace:
 |
| John Podesta's creamy risotto as reconstructed by Julian Assange and Food & Wine. No, Assange had nothing to do with the culinary part. To paraphrase Count Dracula, "I never cook... food." Photos by Tara Fisher and David Becker/Getty Images. |
Sour, sour day. I see Podesta doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's", but I can assure you he's right about the risotto. I find it's also necessary to add grated cheese, even if it means contradicting the laws of Italian cooking by combining cheese with mushrooms or seafood, to endow the creaminess with body.LEAKED: Wikileaks hack reveals John Podesta's secret to creamy Risotto pic.twitter.com/A5dW4mG9c6— Allan Smith (@akarl_smith) October 11, 2016
Democrat logic right now:— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) May 5, 2019
1) Hillary Clinton deletes thousands of emails from a private server.
- Dems: “Nothing to see here!”
2) AG Barr releases an entire 488-page Special Counsel report with only light redactions.
- Dems: “It’s a cover up!”
link for FBI judgment on email deletions: https://t.co/ocfK5penRs— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 5, 2019
link for FBI judgment on Trump obstruction: https://t.co/3sUTI2AmY8 pic.twitter.com/7QM9COhENn
Thing I learned, in a horrible Twitter exchange on the question of whether Facebook was violating the First Amendment in banning Alex Jones, is that to wingnuts, "white nationalist" simply means "nationalist (i.e. patriotic American) who is white":
That's a confusing way of putting it. "White nationalist" usually means a person who believes in a "white nation", white people first and the rest of the country in second class. A white person or half-white person who is a nationalist is a whole different thing!— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 5, 2019
They got super mad at me for telling them the truth!
That's what I said. "White nationalist" does not mean nationalist who happens to be white. The latter is normal and fine with me, though I'm more internationalist myself. The former is a dangerous segregationist position. pic.twitter.com/TXzeT0dR4P— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 5, 2019
The same goes for "black nationalist". If you're a patriotic black guy and you call yourself a nationalist, god bless you. "Black nationalist" means something different, on the lines of Louis Farrakhan, and I'm not down with it. pic.twitter.com/6BUW6Xc0is— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 5, 2019
The Merriam Webster dictionary is not "the left". They record actual American English usage. Malcolm X, a much better person than Farrakhan, did not "love America above all other countries." He called himself a Black Nationalist https://t.co/Co8EAVmdsw pic.twitter.com/FVWEV6fldv— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 6, 2019
You clearly have the same hate filled, sick, and twisted mind prevalent of the left.— Christopher Cherrone (@thndrdude) May 6, 2019
Golly Moses!
If you need to know, the reason Facebook and Twitter bans don't violate the First Amendment is that they aren't Congress; they are public accommodations, and they can write laws abridging the freedom of such press as depends on them any time they want, as long as they do it in such as way as not to discriminate against protected categories, or pretty much against anybody who doesn't endanger the business or the civic peace:
Not at all. I'm saying social media companies are allowed to decide whether she should (fails to comply with their terms of service) or not, but they have to have a reason within the scope of the Civil Rights act. https://t.co/LcxQZg0cH3 pic.twitter.com/GMwjHLotGT— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 5, 2019
The Scotus ruling is that STATES may not take away access to social media (as North Carolina wanted to do with sex offenders). https://t.co/sZsfEmAqSY Doesn't apply to platforms enforcing their terms of service.— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 5, 2019
It's like, as I've said before, the universally acknowledged right of the bartender to throw out an obnoxious drunk. Of course the most obnoxious drunk is the one who's going to whine about his freedom of speech.Dear wingnut warriors against hate speech censorship, I am bored and ready to start muting you. Where you are wrong is in thinking it's a First Amendment issue--it's not! It's public accommodations https://t.co/AN7FMBlxjG— See Pinned Tweet (@Yastreblyansky) May 5, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment