This... All it mean is the govt can't put you in jail. That's all.
Keri Hilson getting killed for Trump tweet: Is she right though ???
- Thread starter Mr. Met
- Start date
Cats are co-signing her because of her looks, what the exiting President did is not freedom speech, he incited violent acts against a Gov't facility.
She was say if that day comes would you be cool if they started to block black agendas?
Exactly. But they'll tap dance all day for trump.
I get what she trying to say. It just doesn't apply to social media platforms.
Did the black agenda break the platform's terms of service? If not, then I wouldn't be cool. If so, the black agenda has no leg to stand on.
trump broke the rules & was banned. What's so difficult to understand. Create your own platform, & host, & device, & ISP, & you can do & say what you want.
I hear you but that was not what she saying tho. Ms Hilson has a point that should not be discarded. Before we jump in bed with the enemy (CAC’s) we need to think about the how this movement of Corp power could be used against us.
Let a cop kill a black man and we protest and riot as a people, would this same stance be taking with us when white people are tired of hearing about black problems?
That was the angle she was coming from which has some validity to it
Last edited:
What makes her right? Help me understand
He's just trolling. Halo has been at this for years
Basically she was saying would this same censorship be used on black agendas when white people get tired of hearing black people problems
Keri has a point tho. Would black agenda every risk censorship? It is something to think about
No she doesn't. His 1st amendment rights weren't violated. Encouraging violence should be censored.
Freedom of speech applies to the people of the United States, Trump represents the Government so it does not apply to him from what the legal scholars addressed. Remember the ban was going to be enforced to Jan 20 then he becomes a citizen. But Twitter reviewed his post and decided enforced their terms of service ban for life.
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
constitutioncenter.org
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
- To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “
hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press | The National Constitution Center
Last edited:
Is that what's happening now? If you break the rules & they enforce the rules what's the problem? Create your own platform. Did people organize before Twitter?
why do mofokrs continue to fail to understand what freedom of speech and the 1st amendment really means?
eve in their misunderstanding of what it means, it doesn't mean free from consequences of that speech
you can say what you want to say with some limitations but you can and will almost certainly also face consequences.
1st amendment and freedom of speech only protect you from GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP AND PROSECUTION.
social media, employers (most of), etc are not the government so you have no protections from consequences they impose.
also
Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:
eve in their misunderstanding of what it means, it doesn't mean free from consequences of that speech
you can say what you want to say with some limitations but you can and will almost certainly also face consequences.
1st amendment and freedom of speech only protect you from GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP AND PROSECUTION.
social media, employers (most of), etc are not the government so you have no protections from consequences they impose.
also
Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:
- Obscene material such as child pornography
- Plagiarism of copyrighted material
- Defamation (libel and slander)
- True threats
What do u mean when?
Where have you been the last few hundred years? Cacs been tired without even beginning to listen.
Real Talk
unfortunately that appears to be true
.
She's wrong with everything she said!!..But she still nice looking!!.. 
The accounts were deleted, blocked or removed because they violated the rules of PRIVATE companies. We are not simply talking about agendas and opinions, but speech that is calculated to incite others to violence and/or breach of the peace....that is not protected speech and never has been.
There is an argument to be made that these companies operate more as public utilities rather than private companies. Much like the big telecoms back in the day. Either way, their influence is problematic.
FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintain
"The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook."
She's attention seeking by trying to sound informed. If she had an understanding of the 1st Amendment she'd know that what she said doesn't apply to private industry. You can't incite a riot or encourage someone to commit a crime.You can't criticize the company you work for, call your boss an asshole and not expect to get fired.
The certainly is the argument to be made, but that doesn't help the 'speaker' in this case because the speech we are talking about isn't protected under any circumstances. Even if it was the government abridging the speech, they have a right to do so.
Unbelievably. And this is why people like Trump (and the people like him) can get away with the shit he does.
you would think after over a DECADE of hate from Beyonce fans her career derailed etc
she would learn to just NOT...
but apparently she wants attention of any sort any way she can get it.
Wgelp good luck with that.
she would learn to just NOT...
but apparently she wants attention of any sort any way she can get it.
Wgelp good luck with that.
Similar threads
