117th United States Congress: Insurrection 2021

[Infini]

I dunno what I was expecting when I clicked that.

Hard Rs abound.

Full Social Retard: Republigeddon Directors Cut. :D

[Tymon]

I dunno what I was expecting when I clicked that.

Hard Rs abound.

True American Patriots, so they claim anyway.

[Dowzer]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/state...ardon-attorney

[archibaldcrane]

"The Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney does not have a social media presence and is not involved in any efforts to pardon individuals or groups involved with the heinous acts that took place this week in and around the U.S. Capitol."

Wow Trump abandoning his beloved patriots

Sent from my KFDOWI using Tapatalk

[Xno Kappa]

The fact a statement even had to be put out is glorious. Just shows a bunch of retards were taking it seriously lol.

[Qalbert]

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/stat...68225704226816

[Lokus]

Just need someone to lead the charge to start purchasing Huawei phones instead since Apple is clearly against Free Speech.

[Byrthnoth]

I thought the Office of the Pardon Attorney was constantly being surprised by Trump pardons because they weren't going through normal channels.

I wouldn't rule out pardons for his base yet. It could be like Vietnam draft dodging pardons but for idiots.

[Souj]

[Qalbert]

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/sta...89793213837319

[nayaminfenrir]

Regardless of political leanings, banning free speech is a dangerous direction to travel.

[Qalbert]

Saying "we won't host your hateful violence-promoting rhetoric on our company's servers" isn't banning free speech my dude.

[Mertron]

i should be able to say “im gonna shoot the president” on bg

[BerenTebogo]

Regardless of political leanings, banning free speech is a dangerous direction to travel.

Lazy and unintelligent take. Learn how our country works.

[Byrthnoth]

I guess maybe making all utilities private and not building public infrastructure for public discourse on the DARPAA-developed internet was a bad idea.

Now everything on the web is run by private companies and free speech is never a legal requirement.

[Qalbert]

To add on to that, conservatives are all about "Businesses can deny service to anyone for any reason" and "the market will decide" until it affects them, then suddenly it's a violation of rights and tyranny and communist china and the government should force them to provide services.

[Tyrath]

Conservatives wouldn't have any standards if they didn't have double standards.

[archibaldcrane]

It's wild that private companies are heavily relied on by politicians and can fuck up their messaging strategies if they want to, but that's not a "free speech" issue.

[kuronosan]

Regardless of political leanings, banning free speech is a dangerous direction to travel.

"we refuse to host your hate speech" is not banning free speech.

[Gredival]

Certain platforms are required to platform political interests equally, so Trump has more of a case than a normal person that he should have access. Like this radically changes how he can run a 2024 campaign.

I think there is good reason to believe that access to large social media exposure is outcome determinative. If how networks are not allowed to show say, Arnold Schwarzenegger movies on TV when he's running for office, then social media outlets shouldn't be able to arbitrarily yank persons off the platform for content.

Now the issue is that speech that incites immediate violence and danger is never protected, and that is all Trump does. Not just through his own language, but by how the right has groomed these people to be a feral tribe. And these companies can be liable.

If Trump wasn't such a moron and was more "civilized" with his hate speech though, I think there's a case to be made that he should have publication access. Like if a fundamentaliat Islamist were running for office and he made statements like "women are inferior and must be subservient to men and cover their sinful skin" I don't think we are allowed to ban that as hate speech.