Infowars, Harasser of Parents of Sandy Hook Victims, Has Been Deplatformed Thread - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14939039
Sivad wrote:I never claimed they were trying to abolish the party, I said they're trying to get rid of Corbyn's wing of the party with bogus accusations of hate speech.

No, you didn't talk about a wing. I already quoted what you said; here it is again, with even more context:

Rugoz wrote:Hyberbole. There are plenty of democracies out there that have laws against slander or hate speech and are doing fine.

Sivad wrote:That's starting to change because up until now it wasn't an issue, the establishment had dominant control of the narrative. Now that they're losing that control they're starting to use that precedent to shut down their critics. So it's definitely not hyperbole, the threat is very real.

In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Often Used to Suppress and Punish Left-Wing Viewpoints
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in- ... iewpoints/
They're trying to shut Corbyn's Labor Party down right now with accusations of hate speech

There have been suspensions, forced resignations, and expulsions, they are trying to shut down Corbyn's party.

"Corbyn's party" is the Labour Party. Any suspensions, resignations or expulsions have been about specific instances of anti-semitism by individuals. It's not about a "wing". In context, you were talking about national laws, not internal party decisions. So, yes, what you said was hyperbole.
#14939044
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No, you didn't talk about a wing. I already quoted what you said; here it is again, with even more context:


:knife:


"Corbyn's party" is the Labour Party.


No it isn't, he represents one faction of the party. I just read a story in the Guardian saying there's a faction being led by 12 senior members of labor trying to oust Corbyn.


Any suspensions, resignations or expulsions have been about specific instances of anti-semitism by individuals. It's not about a "wing". In context, you were talking about national laws, not internal party decisions. So, yes, what you said was hyperbole.


In context I was talking about speech being used to silence the opposition and prevent meaningful participation in the political discourse. That's exactly what's happening in the labor party, they just instituted a bunch of fakakta hate speech rules that will no doubt be applied retroactively and used by the establishment faction to attempt to purge the party genuine social democratic reformers. So, no, what I said was not hyperbole.
#14939049
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:@Sivad , I realise you know very little about Britain, so I'll just tell you that Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party, not just a faction.


I know quite a bit about UK politics, I've been following it for years. I'm well aware of Corbyn's position within the party. Your claim that "Corbyn is the party" is ridiculous, Labour isn't a unified monolith, it's big tent(broad church) party. There are definitely wings and factions and coalitions within the party that are in opposition to Corbyn's leadership and the movement within the party that Corbyn represents. Either you're just making some lame quibble to score some cheap points on the internet or you really are profoundly ignorant regarding the workings of party politics in the UK(party politics everywhere really).

Your hyperbole continues, so I'll just leave you to continue to prove yourself wrong.


:knife:
#14939072
colliric wrote:You realise he's always made most of his cash out of the vitamins and merchandise right, as well as the radio affiliates?

Dude's self-funding could keep him going for years.

He doesn't even need fucken Patreon.....


Lmfao

"Actually, my hero has conned so many rubes into buying his useless garbage that he could go for years."
#14939145
Sivad wrote:No they don't.
They do, they limit what you can say under threat of court action.
yeah, that's why they put it in the constitution. :knife:
Try actually reading the first Amendment. The States were free to limit speech as much as they wanted. The 2nd Amendment implies an individual right. The 1st doesn't.
#14939155
Rich wrote:They do, they limit what you can say under threat of court action.


There is no right to slander or libel so there's no infringement.

Rich wrote:Try actually reading the first Amendment. The States were free to limit speech as much as they wanted. The 2nd Amendment implies an individual right. The 1st doesn't.


Most of the state constitutions established freedom of the press and free exercise, so the states weren't free to limit speech as much as they wanted.
#14939162
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/joshfoxfilm/status/1028651612166922241


Can you name these "specific instances of anti-semitism"?


Don't bother asking Prosthetic Conscience for proof of something. I think he just makes a claim and then is too lazy to post proof to back it up when challenged.

It seems like you may be finally figuring this all out skinster, that the same people who want to shut down the far right are more than willing to shut down left leaning critics of Israel.

This has always been the case.
#14939180
skinster wrote:Can you name these "specific instances of anti-semitism"?


The fake news really faked the shit out of that Vicky Kirby tweet. She was quoting a movie and the MSM pretended she was mocking jews. So if we're gonna start banning media organizations for libel and harassment we're gonna have to ban Huffington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, and quite a few more. That's really despicable to destroy a woman's reputation and career with blatant lies. That's as reprehensible as anything Alex Jones has done.
#14939317
Sivad wrote:There is no right to slander or libel so there's no infringement.

Free speech doesn't have to be truthful speech, but even more important the courts become the arbiter of truth. Libel and slander laws have been used over and over again to protect the rich and powerful, from the truth. Free speech can not be an absolute, you could have no weights and measures laws under absolute legal free speech for example.


Most of the state constitutions established freedom of the press and free exercise, so the states weren't free to limit speech as much as they wanted.

They were free to by the US Federal Constitution.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 21

^ Like that.

And here we see the liberal moving to support pe[…]

Fuck Oregon. BC pot is better, anyways. :D

How is con s ensus not better than authoritarian?[…]