Old 05-29-2020, 10:57 AM
  #23  
CalHunter
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,642
Default

No, it was for Lunker. I was going through all of his posts in this topic and was trying to get a better sense of his base level, bottom line point on this topic. And yes, I realize that what we're both proposing should be the "rules" for Twitter and Facebook" is going to irritate a lot of liberals who believe in censorship and some Independents who think only 1 side has problems. Censoring somebody is pretty much a tacit admission that one is losing the argument or public debate. It also prevents you from examining all of the evidence and information as opposed to just the parts that support a particular point of view. It's one of the key reasons behind the 1st amendment so the press and people could expose the errors of government.

The first amendment doesn't apply to private companies like Twitter and Facebook but such companies reach a growth point where they control a significant chunk of the public domain so to speak and you start getting into gray areas. Such as, if it's illegal for a white country club to ban black membership, is it illegal for a Black organization to ban white membership? Taking that tenet further, does that make it illegal for a liberal organization like Twitter or Facebook to censor or ban conservatives or their posts and topics? I realize these weighty topics are far beyond what the OP posted and are more directed at a level playing field than simply a never Trumper protest post. But it is sometimes fun to climb past the first low hanging rung on a topic.
CalHunter is offline