Patterico's Pontifications

8/7/2018

Facebook Bans Alex Jones for the Wrong Reasons

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:57 am

Alex Jones is the fella who said Sandy Hook was a hoax. I do not care if private companies like Facebook don’t want such obvious libel and slander on their sites. But as David French argues in the New York Times, social media is banning him for a different reason, and it’s not a good idea:

So on Monday, when Apple, Facebook and YouTube acted — in seemingly coordinated fashion — to remove the vast bulk of Mr. Jones’s content from their sites, there’s no cause for worry, right? After all, this was an act of necessary public hygiene. A terrible human being who has no regard for truth or decency is finally getting what he deserves.

Would that it were that simple.

There are reasons to be deeply concerned that the tech companies banned Alex Jones. In short, the problem isn’t exactly what they did, it’s why they did it.

Rather than applying objective standards that resonate with American law and American traditions of respect for free speech and the marketplace of ideas, the companies applied subjective standards that are subject to considerable abuse. Apple said it “does not tolerate hate speech.” Facebook accused Mr. Jones of violating policies against “glorifying violence” or using “dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants.” YouTube accused Mr. Jones of violating policies against “hate speech and harassment.”

These policies sound good on first reading, but they are extraordinarily vague. We live in times when the slightest deviation from the latest and ever-changing social justice style guide is deemed bigoted and, yes, “dehumanizing.” We live in a world where the Southern Poverty Law Center, a formerly respected civil-rights organization, abuses its past trust to label a host of mainstream organizations (including my former employer, the Alliance Defending Freedom) and individuals as “hate groups,” “white nationalists” or “anti-Muslim extremists,” based sometimes on disagreements about theology or sexual morality or sometimes on outright misreadings and misrepresentations of an individual’s beliefs and views.

Exhibit A of how wrong the center has been: In June, it paid Maajid Nawaz $3.375 million for labeling him an “anti-Muslim extremist.” This is rich, considered Mr. Nawaz is a former Islamist turned Muslim reformer.

Maajod Nawaz is the co-author, with Sam Harris, of a book I recently read and recommend: Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. Nawaz is no more an anti-Muslim extremist than I am an alt-right Trumpalo. Nawaz is part of the solution: a Muslim actively trying to rid Islam of Islamism and extremism. He’s the very guy that critics of Islam are always clamoring for: where are the people condemning extremism from within? But to the same New York Times in which French writes, the SPLC is still an Authority. And the New York Times will use the concept of hate speech in a one-sided fashion: employing an anti-white racist on their editorial page even as they cite an SPLC that denounces reformers like Nawaz as extremists.

French says: sure, get rid of Alex Jones for his slander. Not his “hate speech.” That’s how First Amendment jurisprudence deals with bad actors, and while it’s not required for private companies, it’s a good model.

What I don’t agree with is the “let’s terrorize them with government” approach that even Ted Cruz has taken lately, suggesting that we break up the big social media companies because they’re big. Like it or not, they’re successful because people like them and use them. Don’t take away freedom of choice just because the companies are predictably leftist in their bent. Criticize and compete. That’s the American way.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

192 Responses to “Facebook Bans Alex Jones for the Wrong Reasons”

  1. First they came for…

    NJRob (b00189)

  2. Another issue that might be worth a look at — and as a prosecuting attorney, I think you should be able to appreciate this, Pat — is potential violations of 100+-year-old antitrust law.

    Gryph (08c844)

  3. It strikes me that if the SPLC is the oracle for what the social media companies determine is and isn’t “hate”, it becomes vulnerable to libel suits, because inaccuracies have demonstrable financial impact. This might be power the SPLC will regret having.

    Appalled (96665e)

  4. Franklin knew we would not keep our liberty and our republic. A matter of time.

    It’s tragically ironic that DJT is seen to be a tyrant for expressing himself on Twitter while our betters at facebook, Twitter, and You Tube are our protectors when they ban expression. What a perversion it is that cultural disruptors who demand thought, such as Candace Owens, are deemed Nazis while the shamers and information gatekeepers/censors of the left are believed to be virtuous.

    Beck’s latest “thing” is that we have entered the age of Post-Modernism – that we are past progressivism. He may be correct.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  5. Alex Jones has his own site. People can go there for his content. Just like I come here, instead of looking for links to Patterico.com from Drudge or Instapundit.

    Personally, I’m upset that for years Jewel stocked Chicken-of-the-Sea sardines sardines in Louisiana hot sauce but I haven’t been able to find them on the shelf recently. Damn liberal grocery oligopoly!

    nk (dbc370)

  6. I wonder if the liberal Jews just got woke?

    mg (9e54f8)

  7. I’m upset that for years Jewel stocked Chicken-of-the-Sea sardines sardines in Louisiana hot sauce but I haven’t been able to find them on the shelf recently.

    Amazon to the rescue, nk

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  8. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/304187/#respond

    Professor Reynolds gets it.

    NJRob (b00189)

  9. Thank you, Chuck.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. 2 besides anti trust laws these companies want protection of not being held accountable as a publisher while acting as publishers.

    They would also be violating all sorts of FEC rules.

    Nate Ogden (bc7549)

  11. let me perfectly clear, he smells of elderberries, his argument is puerile, reenactors bunkum, instead of pointing out how each event is seen as a potential port Arthur, dunblane et al, but they couch this in the guise of societal hygiene,

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. “Sardine?”

    “Personally, I’m upset that for years Jewel stocked Chicken-of-the-Sea sardines sardines in Louisiana hot sauce but I haven’t been able to find them on the shelf recently.”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QrE17OVVW_E

    Colonel Haiku (0e0056)

  13. “So on Monday, when Apple, Facebook and YouTube acted — in seemingly coordinated fashion — to remove the vast bulk of Mr. Jones’s content from their sites, there’s no cause for worry, right? After all, this was an act of necessary public hygiene. A terrible human being who has no regard for truth or decency is finally getting what he deserves.

    Would that it were that simple.”– David French

    It is.

    Leave it to a lawyer like French to complicate it. As nk notes, Jones has his own site so the almond and cashew crowd can feed upon each other at will. Mimeograph machines sell for about a hundred bucks on eBay and Office Depot often has a sale on paper. There are plenty of street corners on the planet open to Jones to pass out hand bills.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. I think it’s up to Alex Jones, really. If he truly wants acceptance, he should shed his Archie-Bunker-on-meth reactionary shell, and reveal the shy, sensitive, young girl, who likes Smurf dolls and My Little Pony shower curtains and having mommy read If You Give A Mouse A Cookie at bedtime, that he’s hiding underneath.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. but you can urge attacks on police officers, on private businesses, and that’s ok, you see the quandary,

    narciso (d1f714)

  16. 16… not their concern, narciso. They’ve flipped teh script and some clowns are good wit dat…

    Colonel Haiku (0e0056)

  17. Congress has long regulated communications companies when they become effectively the gatekeepers to public speech. Ma Bell is the perfect example. The phone company could not turn off your phone because you were a Communist. Even people in prison could use the phone, when given physical access.

    Now, we have more ways of speaking, but Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others have come to dominate each of them. When they act to cut someone off, not becuase the speech is criminal (e.g. slander) because they disapprove of the content of the speech, they enter a grey area. When they act in concert, that grey area gets rather darker.

    Congress could, and should, mandate that companies that dominate their communications channel respect 1st Amendment rights as a condition of monopoly tolerance. Without such a rule, when all communication other than a megaphone is controlled by private companies, the first Amendment is pretty much dead.

    You might say, oh, but blogs, and oh, but email. But just wait.

    You could aslo say that these ARE private actors, not the government, but government control of speech might be less oppressive as government is at least responsive to the voters. Not so much Apple and Google.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  18. I foresee the day when “hate blogs” (like this one) are effectively offline, when the internet peering monopoly-to-come blocks their nameservers. You don’t need to be the Chinese government to have a national firewall.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  19. Alex Jones has his own site. People can go there for his content.

    Only so long as the IP address for “Infowars.com” is provided to the user. The government already blocks some of that for other reasons.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  20. A command economy in the marketplace of ideas? Hmm. That should work out good.

    But that’s not what the people who elected Trump are really complaining about. What they’re complaining about is that “Apple, YouTube and Facebook have a lot” and they’re whining that they should have their “fair share” like the whiny little freeloaders who voted for Trump that they are.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. Why did they make the original contract with him, I think this would be considered a break of contract, Oliver Darcy doesn’t care until it happens to him

    Narciso (1a2b64)

  22. Chicken-of-the-Sea sardines

    Sardine consumption is not among the enumerated rights.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  23. @21 Kevin M

    You’re moving the goalposts.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  24. 18… good analogy.

    Colonel Haiku (0e0056)

  25. A command economy in the marketplace of ideas? Hmm. That should work out good.

    So, are you arguing that Ma Bell should have been allowed to turn off the phones of people who said naughty things?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  26. He lied about the victims of a tragedy. People who believed his lies harassed their surviving family members. When the survivors sued to get him to stop lying he counter sued them.

    I Agree that there’s a line and a slippery slope, but i can’t get a lot of outrage worked up about infowars.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  27. You’re moving the goalposts.

    No, I’m just seeing them where they really are.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  28. I wanted to add, a simple, objective statement of rules would be great. Do private companies have to allow anything at all until they can come up with the perfect rule? Any implementation is going to be subjective at some point. Or the rule is “anything goes”.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  29. I Agree that there’s a line and a slippery slope, but i can’t get a lot of outrage worked up about infowars.

    It is never important to worry about the rights of nice people. Yes, he’s a jerk and he should be crushed by slander suits, but he’s being used as the justification for things that are applied to far less obnoxious people who present uncomfortable facts.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  30. So, are you arguing that Ma Bell should have been allowed to turn off the phones of people who said naughty things?

    Apples and oranges. That’s not what happened here. The World Wide Web did not take away Jones’s domain. His ISP did not kick his site off their servers.

    If you don’t like the sardines and Jewel analogy, how about a Barnes and Noble and The Turner Diaries analogy? But you know what’s a better analogy? The liberals whining about the “conservative monopoly” of talk radio and demands for return of the Fairness Doctrine which has been going on since at least Bush v. Gore.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Do private companies have to allow anything at all until they can come up with the perfect rule?

    First Amendment jurisprudence is pretty well evolved. Condition monopoly tolerance on following those same rules. It’s been done before with other common carriers.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  32. His ISP did not kick his site off their servers.

    Others have. As the backbones of the internet become more consolidated, this becomes more of a worry. I imagine by the time you are worried enough to object, it will be hard to do so.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  33. #31. You say you have the facts. Proffer them. About people who aren’t Alex Jones.

    I’ll even give you one — Mike Doran — whose tweets no longer show up on my feed because I have to change my twitter filter to see them, and I can’t be bothered. Doran loves him some Trump, but he meets most levels of respectable, and his tweeting about things like unmasking are at least intereting.

    Appalled (96665e)

  34. The Turner Diaries

    You can get them on Amazon. B&N is a flyspeck in comparison. And you can also get them electronically, over the table, or under.

    But again, SALE of an item is different than communication of an idea.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  35. But you know what’s a better analogy? The liberals whining about the “conservative monopoly” of talk radio and demands for return of the Fairness Doctrine which has been going on since at least Bush v. Gore.

    Why is this a better analogy? Again you are talking about bit players, such as KRAP talkradio holding less than 0.001% of the communication marketplace, or Fox News SELLING a product (“The Hannity Show”) in a competitive marketplace.

    As opposed to a single company controlling an entire means of communication, with high barriers to competition.

    Can’t you see the difference?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  36. But again, SALE of an item is different than communication of an idea.

    That’s all I see it as. Three retailers — Apple, YouTube and Facebook — refusing to stock the Alex Jones brand. You’re painting it like they blew up his trucks, driveway, loading dock and factory store.

    nk (dbc370)

  37. As opposed to a single company controlling an entire means of communication, with high barriers to competition.

    This does not describe Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  38. The way this argument is presented by Google, et al, is as follows:

    1. Alex Jones is a terrible person, saying hateful things.
    2. Therefore we will block his speech.

    37. Therefore, we will block other speech we don’t like, such as questioning sexual reassignment surgery.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  39. Plus they already had a contract, Moran who is one of the leading middle eastern specialists (who happens to have been right re the unmaskings) is much more dangerous.

    narciso (d1f714)

  40. As opposed to a single company controlling an entire means of communication, with high barriers to competition.

    Eh? Wut? Which single company?

    nk (dbc370)

  41. This does not describe Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook.

    Twitter has competition in mass instant messaging?
    YouTube has competition in mass personal video messaging?
    Facebook has competition in linked personal ego pages?

    No, in each case. Sure, they may compete among themselves, but each venue is a different medium. And besides, in this case they acted in concert.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  42. So “chase me ladies’was the diligent minder re voldemort, who kept crimethink to a minimum.

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. Eh? Wut? Which single company?

    A single company for each channel. See my last.

    But even then, there is consolidation.

    Google owns Search and YouTube.
    Facebook owns Facebook and WhatsApp.
    Apple is larger than most governments.
    Any of them would buy Wikipedia if it were for sale.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  44. Your argument is like saying in 1960 “But Ma Bell doesn’t control television, radio or telegraph. What’s the problem with letting them turn off the phones of Communists and homosexuals?”

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  45. @46

    You keep making this argument, but I’m not aware of any cases of Bell cutting off service for anything other than non-payment.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  46. “What I don’t agree with is the “let’s terrorize them with government” approach that even Ted Cruz has taken lately, suggesting that we break up the big social media companies because they’re big. Like it or not, they’re successful because people like them and use them. Don’t take away freedom of choice just because the companies are predictably leftist in their bent. Criticize and compete. That’s the American way.”

    Naive. Yesterday’s argument. Utterly ineffective in the present managerial age. There is no ‘competing’ with a social network that depends entirely on the network effect of an already massively installed user base and infrastructure to be effective. There is no ‘competing’ with a social network that actively colludes with other large platforms to take away effective freedom of choice, criticism, and competition.

    There is a business size, power, and resource level at which they start assuming the powers of government but none of the responsibilities, and that is the size at which you break them up. And now they want your daily banking information!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-banks-give-us-your-data-well-give-you-our-users-1533564049

    I do agree with your assertion that ‘we should not terrorize them with government’, they should not be *terrorized* into becoming a de facto arm of the government, they simply need to be *destroyed* as bad monopolistic actors.

    In any case, freedom of speech is a *more important* value than freedom of choice. Freedom of speech is the only way you can make people *effectively* aware of more choices. Businesses and advertisers HATE it and will push for government to regulate it away whenever possible! But it’s the only weird trick that works in any age as a guide for how you should regulate them.

    Steppe Nomad (8c9339)

  47. Because bell didn’t see themselves as an ideological enterprise.

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. To the extent there is an analogy, it isn’t Ma Bell circa 1960. It’s more NBC, CBS, ABC at the same time period — which was subject to some political regulation (remember the Fairness Doctrine)?

    The real problem I have with Kevin M’s suggestion is that it easily becomes an anti-hate speech mandate in the hands of a Democratic administration. Frankly, I think a google, facebook, twitter that tilts too far left will generate a FoxNews type competition. That doesn’t happen if you create a structure that lets the institutional left regulate it out of existence.

    Appalled (96665e)

  49. You keep making this argument, but I’m not aware of any cases of Bell cutting off service for anything other than non-payment.

    Cluebat: analogies don’t have to be real events. But you know that.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  50. So your remedy is to break them up, split Youtube from Google, break up Apple, split Facebook from InstaWhatsBook.

    And what would that do to the policy, that remedy has zero effect on the outcome you’re complaining about. You’re talking about a complaint that cannot be addressed by the available remedy.

    To try to enforce non-applicable 1st amendment restrictions on private entities, you also are restricted by the 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, amendments, and you still don’t get to solve the problem you’re complaining about.

    Colonel Klink (47eae7)

  51. Same platforms silencing Bill Whittle and others.

    NJRob (aad883)

  52. “One of the biggest problems with the whole “Facebook’s a private company,” argument is that FB has argued in court that legally they’re a “platform,” not a “publisher” to escape content liability.

    The vague excuse used to ban InfoWars was the editorial action of a publisher.”

    https://twitter.com/thealexvanness/status/1026887948011298816

    “It’s just a business, bro!” as Facebook and others continue to take actions that indicate very little interest in the business side of things but very much interest in the ‘public responsibility’ and ‘public arbiter’ side.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit

    Do you need to wait for *hard evidence* that Facebook, has, say, built its blackmail dossier on every remotely compliant judge and member of Congress, or do you do the smart thing and destroy them utterly and unexpectedly as soon as they step out of line, so you can grab the discovery before they have a chance to hide it under seventeen layers of management plausible deniability? Best practices in the Special Counsel industry say the latter!

    Steppe Nomad (00e23d)

  53. Appalled,

    No, the networks are NOT the same. The networks controlled their content utterly and used then-dear bandwidth to do so. The phone company, like Twitter, YouTube, et al, only carried the speech of others.

    Further, in the case of Alex Jones, no one is forced to listen to him. Nothing is broadcast. The censorship only prevents Jones from speaking to WILLING listeners.

    And how does “obey the first amendment” become “repress speech”?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  54. So your remedy is to break them up, split Youtube from Google, break up Apple, split Facebook from InstaWhatsBook.

    where did I say that?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  55. To try to enforce non-applicable 1st amendment restrictions on private entities

    The government has done that to other common carriers.

    BTW, here’s a fun cautionary tale: https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-filtering-censorship-the-second-free-speech-tradition/

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  56. Alex Jones can host his own videos. He doesn’t need YouTube, Facebook or Apple. He will need to buy or rent his own servers with the requisite capacity and do they still use phone lines to connect to the web? https://www.instructables.com/id/Set-up-your-very-own-Web-server/ He already has a domain name, which he’ll want to keep.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. Although it is sad that the proponents of “Network Neutrality” — a demand for dedicated bandwidth — conflate their argument with common carrier speech issues.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  58. He already has a domain name, which he’ll want to keep.

    There are already cases where people who wanted to provide [somewhat more objectionable] videos have found that their domain names weren’t sacred, and their server’s access to the Internet wasn’t guaranteed. Sometimes this has been ISPs shutting them down, sometimes it has been the US government.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  59. From the Brookings article I linked before. And yes, they are liberal, just not corrupted yet.

    This is the first free speech tradition, the centerpiece of how free speech has been understood in America.[3] Yet while not irrelevant, it has become of secondary importance for many of the free speech questions of our times. Instead, a second free speech tradition, dating from 1910 or the 1940s, much less well known, and barely taught in school, has slowly grown in importance.

    The second tradition is different. It cares about the decisions made by concentrated, private intermediaries who control or carry speech. It is a tradition where the main governmental agent is not the Supreme Court but the Interstate Commerce or Federal Communications Commission. And in the second tradition the censors, as it were, are not government officials but private intermediaries, who are often lacking a censorial instinct of their own, but nonetheless vulnerable to censorial pressures from others. Above all, it is a speech tradition linked to the technology of mass communications.

    In its heyday from the 1930s through the 1960s the second tradition was anchored in the common carriage rules applied to the telephone company and also, at times, to radio, and later on, in the cajoling of and the public interest duties imposed on broadcasters. In its mid-century incarnation, the regime was a reaction to the concentration at every layer of the communications industry. But today, the industry is different, and in our times, the concerns have changed. As Jeffrey Rosen wrote in 2008, in the New York Times Magazine:

    At the moment, the person with the most control over free expression around the globe is not a judge, a president, or a monarch. She is Nicole Wong, deputy general counsel at Google. Wong is known within Google as “The Decider,” because she alone decides which blogs, videos, articles and other content is posted on YouTube, and which are removed in response to requests from governments and users ranging from the Thai King and the Pakistani prime minister to Hollywood corporations.[4]Captured in this paragraph is an essential feature of the speech architecture of our times and how it affects the speech environment. We live in an age where an enormous number of speakers, a “long tail” in popular lingo, are layered on top of a small number of very large speech intermediaries.[5] Consequently, understanding free speech in America has become a matter of understanding the behavior of intermediaries, whether motivated by their own scruples, law, or public pressure.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  60. There was even a guy sent to jail because his video was the scapegoat for a political disaster.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  61. As far as hate speech is concerned, the Unabomber Manifesto — hate speech if there ever was hate speech — is still up on reputable sites, such as the Washington Post.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  62. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “

    So if you want to change that so that Government can regulate private property to force “free speech”. You can propose a Constitutional Amendment that modifies the 1st, 3rd…to remove the limitation of shall make no law. It says right there, you can petition the government for redress of your grievances, that’s your 1st Amendment right at work.

    Then you can use the same logic to remove shall not from the 2nd Amendment.

    Why do you want to force the baker to bake a cake? Same argument.

    Leroy Jenkins (6e7a1c)

  63. I think Roseanne would have a better argument if she tried to get ABC, NBC, or CBS to air her show and have it paid for by their advertisers. After all, they are the Big Three, with the lion’s share of the prime time audience, and they are using the public airwaves.

    nk (dbc370)

  64. By the way, Cruz has a technical argument other than mean lefties. Let’s give him the opportunity to express it:

    The opening question that I asked Zuckerberg is ‘Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?’ and he danced around and refused to answer that question,” Sen. Cruz said to Berry. “Now the reason that matters is that under Section 230 of what is called the Communications Decency Act (CDA) Facebook and other social media companies have a congressionally created immunity from civil liability. Which means if someone posts something on Facebook, you can’t sue them for it. They are immune from being sued. Congress gave them that special protection. By the way, that protection does not apply to the New York Times; it does not apply to Michael Berry. If you say something, if you go on air and slander someone, they can sue you. Congress has given Facebook, Twitter, and Google a special protection where you cannot sue them. The entire basis of that protection is that they were a neutral public forum, so it was other people speaking, not them, so they should not be sued. If they’re instead going to choose to be political speakers that advance their own political view, they have the right to do that but they don’t have any entitlement to have some special immunity from liability from Congress if they’re just another private company expressing their own political views.”

    https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3723

    Ted basically feels there is a link between whether twitter/youtube/facebook provides a neutral public forum, and freedom from slander and libel suits. Again, my hesitation is any governmental regulation like this can be linked to hate speech restrictions or fairness doctrine – like restrictions.

    Appalled (96665e)

  65. And here is a response to Ted’s thoughts:

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepresenting-communications-decency-act

    Section 230 also gives Facebook wide latitude to moderate the content posted to its site. Sub-section 230(c)(2) explicitly contemplates such a thing: It protects Facebook from civil liability on the basis of any “good faith” restrictions the company places on access to “material that [it] or [the] user considers to be … objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” There is no neutrality provision and no review provision. The text explicitly says that the decision about whether material is objectionable is the service provider’s to make.

    Appalled (96665e)

  66. you don’t get that it’s explicitly a purge, they blame social media, for trump, so they’ll fix this wagon, this was mark Lloyd’s argument some years how the wonderful Chavez revolution, came to pass,

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. There was even a guy sent to jail because his video was the scapegoat for a political disaster.

    False. He was sent (back) to jail for violating the terms of his parole (which he admitted to).

    Dave (62e29a)

  68. they wouldn’t steer us wrong:

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/07/nunes-fbi-carter-page-fisas/

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. I get that it’s explicitly a purge. One that they have a right to make. The alternative is some New York liberal so-called judge telling the President of the United States that he cannot block trolls on his Twitter.

    nk (dbc370)

  70. “So on Monday, when Apple, Facebook and YouTube acted — in seemingly coordinated fashion…”

    So on Monday, when Sol set followed by Venus, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars – in seemingly coordinated fashion…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  71. Do you “make” a purge? “Conduct”, that’s it! A purge that they have a right to conduct.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. And the slippery slope, actually a precipice, is Ted Cruz’s implied threat. It would shut down all comment threads on the internet. Including this one.

    nk (dbc370)

  73. well I would prefer they not use the ion cannon,

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. I won’t say that Sandy Hook 100% didn’t happen, but I will say that coroner acted awfully weird and there was an enormous lack of evidence released. And dad’s laughing before crying on camera seems suspicious.

    Dejectedhead (5d1840)

  75. well what’s the normal reaction, certainly it was used to try to provoke the same effect after Hungerford and dunblane,

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. “I know more about guns than anyone probably…the long one did it.”

    ‘They’re just private companies exercising private decisions…and Apple only has like a 40% marketshare in the US. Far from a monopoly status. Sure, if you add in Youtube, Google, Spotify, and Facebook it’s more like 95% market control, but it only appears as if they’re colluding.’

    Dejectedhead (32d547)

  77. How will we know what the child crisis actors are doing, who pretend to be 20 dead and shot to pieces 6 year olds if jones can’t communicate the doings of these little crisis actor brats? Where will the phony dead brats strike next?

    wendell (5c291b)

  78. alex jones can always go on ku klux klan talk, though nazi talk has been shut down again.

    wendell (5c291b)

  79. “And the slippery slope, actually a precipice, is Ted Cruz’s implied threat. It would shut down all comment threads on the internet. Including this one.”

    “The time for the clowns and the acrobats and the dancing bears has passed.”

    —- Ted Cruz

    Colonel Haiku (b5bc8f)

  80. It appears we’re out of luck.

    Colonel Haiku (b5bc8f)

  81. 14 2018 twitter and Google are the paper, at least that is what they claim in court, on multiple occasions. 1776 if the British sympathizers refused to sell paper to Patriots would it have been a freedom of speech issue?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  82. R.I.P. Stan Mikita

    (Look it up!)

    Icy (45c887)

  83. Liberals tell corporate establishment and democrat party leaders no more mr. nice guy! Pelosi and schumer told your are discredited shut up and go take a hike we will deal with conservatives now! Get ready. nazi’s thought fdr and the anti fascists were not tough enough either!

    wendell (5c291b)

  84. 67.I think Roseanne would have a better argument if she tried to get ABC, NBC, or CBS to air her show and have it paid for by their advertisers. After all, they are the Big Three, with the lion’s share of the prime time audience, and they are using the public airwaves.

    Assuming an advertiser would want their product associated as a sponsor of a racist. Nobody is stopping her from performing- plenty of public parks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  85. 62 in today’s small business sector a Facebook page is more common than a domain. They are, according to Facebook, separate platforms. Banning them from Facebook is like saying it’s ok to ban them from printing because they can still send smoke signals.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  86. The left will get offended if you point this out to them, but they are actively advocating for the world to resemble the one place that they all universally claim to hate…the corporate office. All of their social activism he basically pushing for everyone to behave like everyone is perpetually at work.

    Dejectedhead (32d547)

  87. Kevin M,

    Would it concern you, from a First Amendment perspective, to force Apple, Facebook, and YouTube to provide a platform for views that they find repulsive?

    When you’re talking about a platform and a content provider, “free speech” for the latter can look a lot like “compelled speech” (or at least “compelled association”) for the former.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  88. Private property rights exist, Alex Jones has no right to a “safe space” in Mark Zuckerberg’s living room, no more than antifa or NAMBLA.

    Colonel Klink (fdcec9)

  89. Since forever I have been commenting on left wing sites that if the lefties think bank charges and interest are too high, or rents are too high, they should start their own banks or buy their own rental properties.

    The same applies to conservatives kicked off Twitter, Facebook et al. Start your own.

    Gather your family and friends, get them to invest, do a public share float, sell your soul to various lenders and go for it.

    If you won’t do that, and want the government to help out, you’re just another lefty.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  90. @53 Narciso

    Oh a gateway pundit link. I’m sure this will be insightful.

    If only Fox news had some way to get their message out other than Facebook.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  91. Again, PragerU tried to argue this in court previously, it was immediately bounced. They then tried to appeal, but haven’t been able to find a justification, since it’s silly on its face.

    Colonel Klink (1b3d81)

  92. Alex Jones is the fella who said Sandy Hook was a hoax.

    The interesting thing is that other times he said mass shootings were a conspiracy (probably by the government and probably to promote gun control) but this time he said it was hoax and didn’t happen at all.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/infowars-alex-jones-apple-facebook-spotify.html

    Mr. Jones and Infowars have used social media for years to spread dark and bizarre theories, such as that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax and that Democrats run a global child-sex ring…. Mr. Jones has repeatedly claimed that the government staged the Oklahoma City bombing, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and numerous other mass shootings and tragedies.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  93. I think Alex Jones is part of a conspiracy.

    Probably a little bit more than a conspiracy just to make money, because this can’t be the best way of making money, at least if he’s acting alone. If there are a lot of other people besides Alex Jones involved in this conspiracy to spread (wrong) conspiracy theories, then yes, that could be the best way he has of making a lot of money.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  94. Patterico: David french is right this could be a very bad precedent. Libel law isn’t so good, because a lot of accusations can be made against unknown individuals (with Sandy Hook, Alex Jones got into the position of arguing that the survivors of the murdered that peoplle saw on television were actors (!!), but most of his claims don’t have named victims like that)

    Libel law also (in the United States) has a strong limitation when it comes to public figures (the person makingthe accusation has to have areckless disregard for the truth, menaing he has to either know it is false, or have no reasonable grounds for believing it)

    And Alex Jones I think included some cautionary caveats, at least when he gets challenged.

    And there’s a problem with libel law. When libel law was stronger, and courts reached decisions quicker Charles Ponzi won a libel lawsuit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

    When a Boston financial writer suggested there was no way Ponzi could legally deliver such high returns in a short period of time, Ponzi sued for libel and won $500,000 in damages. As libel law at the time placed the burden of proof on the writer and the paper, this effectively neutralized any serious probes into his dealings for some time.

    http://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294970026

    McMasters approached Richard Grozier, the [Boston] Post’s assistant editor and publisher, about running an exposé on Ponzi. Grozier balked because he was afraid Ponzi would sue him for libel. However, McMasters got a promise from Nathan Tufts, the district attorney of where Grozier lived, that the publisher would be immune from lawsuits if the article proved untrue. So, McMasters wrote the article with the spectacular headline, “Declares Ponzi Is Now Hopelessly Insolvent.”

    When you have somebody adjudging who is telling the truth and who is liar, the worng persdon(s) could be determined to be liar.

    Maybe a better system is having having some sort of a random jury agree that someone often posts malicious statements and then not removig him but having a jury pass on things he posts.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  95. I just want to know why http://www.jewishworldreview.com is blocked by the Brooklyn Public Library. The operator of that website has not been able to get any kind of an explanation.

    They just say the website violates their security policy, and their filter blocked it as a security measure and the web site is compromised so the security filters won’t let it through to protect the network.

    The editor in chief said (in April)

    I’m being kept in the dark.

    Used to run Google ads on my article/toon pages. Then one fine day — sarcasm intended –Google, which has a near monopoly on web ads — booted me. A Google employee told me that they considered JWR to be a “hate site”.

    He aid later he on;y got the run around. No explanatiopn of waht the problem is or how he could cure it.

    They refused to allow me question/fight the charge.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  96. “Would it concern you, from a First Amendment perspective, to force Apple, Facebook, and YouTube to provide a platform for views that they find repulsive?

    When you’re talking about a platform and a content provider, “free speech” for the latter can look a lot like “compelled speech” (or at least “compelled association”) for the former.”

    Not at all. I would, based on their past advertisement of themselves and conduct in happier times, their prior dependence (like lots of previous Silicon valley ventures) on government funding, their bait-and-switch style of promising people free speech, privacy, and control when expanding and cracking down on it when established as the only game in town, their open collusion among each other, the ease of copying their business model once you have the infrastructure, their continuous mendacity in the face of prior investigations, and last but not least, their open lobbying for execrable open borders policies via organizations like fwd.us, their very obvious disparate impact in moderation and demonetization against right, male, white, Christian, conservative, whatever…

    …DEMAND that their freedoms as a business be heavily curtailed and their moderation be restricted to ‘illegal activity’, even if the advertisers don’t like it.

    You say this sets a terrible precedent, but since we’re stealing liberal tactics anyway, we can also steal the fact that they never cared all that much about precedent to begin with if anyone tries to call us one it.

    Steppe Nomad (d936ba)

  97. “I think Alex Jones is part of a conspiracy.

    Probably a little bit more than a conspiracy just to make money, because this can’t be the best way of making money, at least if he’s acting alone. If there are a lot of other people besides Alex Jones involved in this conspiracy to spread (wrong) conspiracy theories, then yes, that could be the best way he has of making a lot of money.”

    His family did work for the CIA, many have claimed that he’s specifically a paid disinformation agent meant to make other rightists look bad.

    If so, banning him is PLAYING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS. The longer paid disinformation agents continue to be the only ones not banned, the more suspicious it looks!

    Steppe Nomad (e2fff1)

  98. From the same NYTimes that insists there is no political double standard in news media:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Heminator/status/1026923352726929408/photo/1

    harkin (096d35)

  99. It’s not a terrible precedent, there can be no precedent, it’s patently illegal. Also what government funding are speaking of? All of these companies were funded by private citizens, so that’s just BS.

    You are not owed a safe space by other private citizens. Patterico has every right to ban anyone he wants here, which is no different than Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, the Sun Times, National Enquirer, Sports Illustrated, or Highlights for Kids.

    Colonel Klink (a4a531)

  100. Preach, Colonel!

    Icy (45c887)

  101. Yes, and PragerU sued over this, using the arguments on free speech, and were bounced immediately out of court because Youtube is a private company, I’ve already talked about this.

    I’m not sure what you link was trying to say since you express no opinion, just posting a link to a non-thing is non…sense.

    Colonel Klink (f4d61e)

  102. They ban her for pointing out the ban, kick was haiku.

    Narciso (7af761)

  103. Pastor neimoller said it best 72 years ago. When they came for the – I was not a – so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!

    wendell (2189ad)

  104. So, will Trump cost the GOP a congressional district it has held since 1983, or will they squeak by?

    The average swing in congressional elections since Donald Trump took office is 16 points toward the Democrats, and this was “only” an R+14 district, so…

    Dave (445e97)

  105. Mr. French was being altogether too sensible, a lot more than the Einsteins at Facebook, etc.

    Paul Montagu (84878a)

  106. “It’s not a terrible precedent, there can be no precedent, it’s patently illegal. Also what government funding are speaking of? All of these companies were funded by private citizens, so that’s just BS.”

    It was legal to break up Standard Oil on the grounds that ‘monopolies are bad for the country even if they may be good for a small number of private citizens,’ it is legal to do the same to Facebook now.

    “You are not owed a safe space by other private citizens. Patterico has every right to ban anyone he wants here, which is no different than Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, the Sun Times, National Enquirer, Sports Illustrated, or Highlights for Kids.”

    Pat isn’t monopolizing anyone but his own particular site. Pat hasn’t had multiple data breaches of private information get waved off by paying fines or intimidating judges. Pat did NOT accept any government grants as seed money. Pat is generally open about his donors(as far as I know;) Pat is NOT monopolizing a platform that’s considered near mandatory for general communication, employment tracking, data scrubbing, and advertising profile building. Pat has no revolving door between his site and national government. Pat has had no history of installing trackers and keyloggers on the clients of his site. Pat has no history of making it difficult to remove yourself from his site, rather the opposite. Pat has no history (that I know of) of giving vague third parties access to the site.

    Pat, in short, *fits the profile of a “private citizen”*, worthy of the protections of one, since his activity has no compelling national interest.

    Facebook, Google, and Apple do not. Whether this makes them too big to fail or too big to let live is for us as Americans to decide.

    “Preach, Colonel!”

    “Preaching” is really all he’s doing, you won’t actually learn anything useful about real life from his ideological rants that continually fail to touch observable reality and human experience.

    Steppe Nomad (b1aed9)

  107. I’m from Columbus, and it seems like Danny boy is going to win by a few points.

    Balderson is a pretty bad candidate, and him dumping on the one county where all the people are was profoundly stupid, the day before the election

    Colonel Klink (f4d61e)

  108. Which private German companies “came for” Niemoller? Mercedes-Benz? Lufthansa? Volkswagen?

    Dave (445e97)

  109. Steppe Nomad, I’m stating exactly what the actual facts are. You are talking about feelz and whatabout.

    Private companies are private. You might notice it, it’s the first word. You can feelz how every you want, but your feelz doesn’t change the words of the Constitution.

    Colonel Klink (f4d61e)

  110. Now he doesn’t have authority yet:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026580187784404994

    Narciso (7af761)

  111. Narciso, your right, all the liberal democratic socialists want to regulate Facebook et al.

    If your solution is the same as Chris Murphy’s, there might be a problem.

    Colonel Klink (f4d61e)

  112. 110, but wasn’t it the Alex P. Keaton/ John “Skippy” Kasich seat? Another installment of Ohio being Ohio, which will be rebooted as North Carolina being North Carolina after the census.

    urbanleftbehind (07ab46)

  113. The Medicaid went like gangbusters right?

    Narciso (7af761)

  114. Now well see who fusion paid off, and where they got the info from

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/07/christopher-steele-congress-interview-chuck-grassley/

    Narciso (7af761)

  115. 118, yes, its Kasich’s old seat. It has been a +20 congressional seat, Trump won +16, this looks like its going to end up +/-1%. There’s a green party candidate, and if Balderson wins, he needs to send that guy some buckeye’s, because he’s pulling about a half point, and it’s not out of Balderson’s bucket.

    Now, they have to do it again in November for the actual term.

    Colonel Klink (064591)

  116. Looking like Balderson will squeak through by a fraction of a % in the R+14 district, although it may be close enough for provisional ballots to affect the outcome.

    If the GOP are smart (stop laughing), there’s still plenty of time to impeach Trump before the midterms and turn this thing around.

    Dave (445e97)

  117. @122. It continues to be axiomatic: Buckeyes are useless nuts.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. I was thinking more of the chocolate and peanut variety.

    The democrats really haven’t tried much in this district for a long time, Tiberi was pretty popular, he won in 2016 by +30, but nearly as many democrats showed up for this thing as the presidential in 2016, republican turnout was down by 150k, only 112k democrats showed up to vote last time, and they’ve got 100k for this.

    The party couldn’t get anyone but Balderson to run, and he only raised about $500k of his own money. If the party hadn’t bailed him out, he wouldn’t have even had TV ads. I’ve no idea what this means for this district in the fall, but it doesn’t say anything good about the other 50ish seats that are closer, and in (R) hands.

    Colonel Klink (ba4fac)

  119. So Farrakhan and commie vandals don’t get deplatfirmed, how does that happen?

    Narciso (7af761)

  120. So Farrakhan and commie vandals don’t get deplatfirmed, how does that happen?

    I’m sure QAnon knows the answer.

    Dave (445e97)

  121. @91 leviticus – Not Kevin, but I would have zero problem coming down like a ton of bricks on a corporation which demands it be regarded as a common carrier under the law, only to insert a POV and to engage in censorship beyond the accepted understanding such as troop movements, direct and obvious threats which are subject to legal proscriptions.

    If a corporation like Facebook wants to manage communications beyond the extremes outlined by SCOTUS through the years, they would necessarily be wide open to any and all claims of defamation and other injuries. Wiiiiiide open.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  122. Ot, the other broke girl and her bff sarsours fave Abdul al sayed lost his primary.

    Narciso (7af761)

  123. Well now we know Facebook and YouTube are very selective as to what they allow.

    Narciso (7af761)

  124. Is it true that Florida stone crab fishermen capture stone crabs, rip just one claw off and then throw the crab back to regrow its claw, so they can capture it again and harvest the claw again, and so on and so forth?

    nk (dbc370)

  125. Not that I’m aware, those crabs are expensive.

    Narciso (7af761)

  126. According to Mr. Google, apparently so.

    nk (dbc370)

  127. Link.

    nk (dbc370)

  128. @127 – This was addressed very clearly above in comment #69 and the detailed article linked to it. The law doesn’t remotely require what you suggest.

    What it says (in part) is:

    “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”

    There is no requirement of neutrality to benefit from that protection, and being a public forum doesn’t preclude moderation and application of standards to content; in fact the law explicitly permits

    “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

    Dave (445e97)

  129. Is it true that Florida stone crab fishermen capture stone crabs, rip just one claw off and then throw the crab back to regrow its claw, so they can capture it again and harvest the claw again, and so on and so forth?

    This really seems like a question for happyfeet.

    Dave (445e97)

  130. It looks like Balderson pulled it out by 1766 votes, with about 3k provisional ballots left to count. Ohio is weird so those can’t be counted for 10 days.

    This election is now on repeat in 3 months. Balderson has zero left in the bank, so he needs to start fundraising immediately, Danny boy has about $1.5million left. Republican turnout was WAY down, democrat turnout almost equaled a presidential, so the mid-terms will definitely still be a turnout election.

    Colonel Klink (3e532d)

  131. So that makes an average swing of +16 points to the Democrats in 11 special elections under President Poodle.

    Dave (445e97)

  132. Yeah, that means that the house is almost guaranteed to flip, there are something like 60 seats closer than this.

    The Senate is a bit of a different animal because the democrats are fighting on their turf, I’d predict not much change at all there.

    Colonel Klink (3e532d)

  133. New Poll: 43% of Republicans Want to Give Trump the Power to Shut Down Media

    All told, 43 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they believed “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.” Only 36 percent disagreed with that statement. […]

    Republicans were far more likely to take a negative view of the media. Forty-eight percent of them said they believed “the news media is the enemy of the American people” (just 28 percent disagreed)

    Trump is doing precisely what Putin hired him to do: destroy American liberty and democracy.

    Dave (445e97)

  134. While the clueless jabber on about Putin, the Left’s new star looks like the Kiss Of Death in her endorsements.

    “Cortez held a whirl-wind tour of the U.S., stumping for Abdul El-Sayed for governor of Michigan, Fayrouz Saad in Michigan’s 11th Congressional District, Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st District, and is backing Congressional candidate Kaniela Ing in Hawaii.

    El-Sayed lost his bid for the Democrat nomination for governor to 50.1 percent to 34.6 percent, according to numbers published by the New York Times.

    Saad came in fourth in the five-way race, capturing only 20.1 percent of the vote.

    Cori Bush lost her primary to William Lacy Clay, 62.3 percent to 30.2 percent, the Times results show.

    Hawaii’s primary election will be August 11. Stay tuned to see if Ing fairs any better.”

    harkin (096d35)

  135. Only 43%? Bummer, dude!

    nk (dbc370)

  136. @135 Dave leviticus asked for personal opinion of Kevin. I offered mine.

    In terms of the law? It was bought and paid for by the mendacious ownership of the social media titans. It is an ass. So, too, the decision in Times v. Sullivan.

    It is just wrong for media to enjoy these absurd shields against basic responsibility for great harms.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  137. Looks like Putin hired both sides:

    Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked

    Claiming to take away liberties to fight the Russians while doing exactly what the Russians want….it’s like 5D chess!

    harkin (096d35)

  138. She went full tufnel, despite a press that would embarrass early procopius.

    Narciso (7af761)

  139. Of course you all realize that this is all a distraction to hide a very ugly truth: That the spike in global warming parallels the growth of the internet. Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon are killing our planet!

    nk (dbc370)

  140. No it’s the alien fireball machine in Mexico, didn’t you see the arrival.

    Narciso (7af761)

  141. ROFLMAOPIP:

    Ted Cruz Asks Trump To Campaign For Him In Texas

    http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article

    U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has asked President Donald Trump to come to Texas to campaign for him. During a campaign stop in Seguin late Monday, Cruz said he has reached out to his former rival for the White House to help him with his re-election effort against Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  142. The real barnburner is Kansas gov…Kobach up as of 10 mins ago, but something like 5 lead changes since counting began.

    urbanleftbehind (07ab46)

  143. And then if you’ve seen snowpiercer, they release a colloidal cloud that triggers an ice age. And as for highlander the quickening…

    Narciso (7af761)

  144. 149, lately they must be aiming using coordinates from 1846.

    urbanleftbehind (07ab46)

  145. Kobach is the narwal:

    https://spectator.org/who-hired-stefan-halper/

    Narciso (7af761)

  146. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqFqskSACFM

    Now come down to Texas and save my Canadian bacon, Donald. The only bigger ass in America than Ted Cruz is stitched to the butt end of the King Kong exhibit at Universal Studios/Orlando.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  147. Sousaphone player dots i for Trump in Ohio

    mg (9e54f8)

  148. @155. Woody Hayes would have punched his ticket.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  149. @150 DCSCA

    Whenever I’m feeling down I look at this picture:

    https://i.imgur.com/4PpLSBy.png

    Lifts my spirits right up.

    Davethulhu (270006)

  150. Facistbook should ban Karl Rove for being Karl Rove.

    mg (9e54f8)

  151. democratic socialist wins pervert john conyers house seat in michigan bernie sanders endorsed first muslim american woman in congress! get your prayer rugs out and pointed at mecca!

    wendell (5504a1)

  152. Looks like Putin hired both sides:
    Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet

    The description of the document at Reason bears little resemblance to the actual document. In particular, the document is not a “plan for government takeover of the internet.”

    It identifies and acknowledges privacy and other concerns that would make many of the reasonable (in principle) goals undesirable or unworkable in practice.

    Dave (445e97)

  153. Whatever happened to ‘You didn’t build that!”

    Facebook/Google/Youtube/etc use countless amounts of public infrastructure to go with some of their private infrastructure. No way they are built stem to stern privately. They get all kinds of tax benefits.

    If they don’t want regulation they can go Hillsdale College and not take any gubmint money; but until then, content-neutral and have the army that’s supposed to be patrolling out southern border go in and enforce.

    Ingot9455 (7ff01c)

  154. Highlander 2, couldnt be saved even with Virginia madden.

    Conor f was on a tear against hillsdale, because hes an idiot.

    narciso (d1f714)

  155. Its best to ignore the narrative:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/esaagar/status/1026947273828302849

    narciso (d1f714)

  156. Being isn’t even original in her hate, she was cribbing from Susan sontag.

    Narciso (abb04b)

  157. Netflix has given up on their farrakhan info, I gave up on Netflix already.

    Narciso (abb04b)

  158. This company is laying off almost all its workers because of tariffs

    A South Carolina company plans to lay off almost all its workers — 126 people — because of the Trump administration’s tariffs.

    Element Electronics, which assembles televisions, notified the state of the expected job cuts earlier this week. The company also plans to close its plant in the town of Winnsboro.

    The company said the layoffs and plant closure were a direct result of US tariffs on goods imported from China, including important parts that Element uses to put together TVs.

    The layoffs will begin in October. By the end of the year, a skeleton crew of eight people will be left, the company said.

    #MAGA

    Dave (445e97)

  159. Davethulhu (270006) — 8/7/2018 @ 10:12 pm

    That’s hilarious!

    I have to hand it to Spanky: he knows how to rip the spine right out of way too many elected Republicans! He makes almost all of them invertebrates, except of course McCain and one or two who are quitting retiring anyway.

    Tillman (d34303)

  160. So; the big companies ban this twit, not because he’s obviously receiving Radio Venus on his bridgework but because of ‘Hate Speech’. And I’ll bet they are all upset that they are getting criticized for it.

    Boo Hoo.

    The term ‘Hate Speech’ is almost always a cop-out. An admission that one cannot muster a counter-argument. And if the likes of Facebook can’t muster a counter-argument against this drivel, they should just give up and take up basket-weaving.

    C. S. P. Schofield (0b343f)

  161. Davey boy and Tillman have woke to master Rosie.

    mg (9e54f8)

  162. mg, even master Rosie would be much preferable to master Putin, doncha know? Curtsy to your traitor then.

    Tillman (d34303)

  163. Davey boy/Rosie/2020

    mg (9e54f8)

  164. Heavy stuff, milligram.

    Dave (445e97)

  165. hillary/Putin/2020

    mg (9e54f8)

  166. It must suc having woke to a wookie like Rosie. The stench can be smelled throughout Walmart

    mg (9e54f8)

  167. I dont know about smells, mg, but this cant be good for the smiley face either (probably some dog-sized Humboldt Park rats making their way west):
    http://abc7chicago.com/health/nw-side-walmart-closed-after-health-inspection/3907689/

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  168. 169 126 vs 176,000, the question is why you celebrate the losses instead of the gains?

    “In the first half of this year, there have been 174,000 manufacturing jobs added. This is almost as many as any full year over the past decade and should easily surpass any added during Obama’s administration as the economy recovered from the Great Recession.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  169. 110. Dave (445e97) — 8/7/2018 @ 4:52 pm

    So, will Trump cost the GOP a congressional district it has held since 1983, or will they squeak by?

    He squeaked by, although a they like to say recount could still be needed, (The Dem would have to get about 60% of the outstanding balllots to get cklose enough for a mandatory recount) and there’s even an argument that Trump helped.

    Balderson ran a lackluster campaign, and didn’t have that much money.

    Independent Pacs were running advertisements for him, so he may not have been in much control of own campaign and so Governor Kasich may be right when he said on Sunday Balderson didn’t ask for Trump to come. He was really pretty much handed the nomination by other Republicans, who didn’t want a Trump Republican to be the candidate. He had the (belated) endorsement of John Kasich.

    There is an argument that enough non-Trumpers or No-Trumpers understood what Balderson really was, so they voted for him, while Trump maybe only turned out the pro-Trump vote. Danny O’Connor may also have been hurt because he seemed to backtrack about not voting for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker toward the end of the campaign. (This Danny O’Connor is not be confused with a previous famous Hollywood actor with a similar name who lived from 1925-2003).

    The Congressman resigned in October, and they held a special election only now, in August? WHAT WENT ON THERE? There will be another election in November, with the same candidates.

    The average swing in congressional elections since Donald Trump took office is 16 points toward the Democrats, and this was “only” an R+14 district, so…

    This was R+11 in the presidential race in 2016, according to the New York Times. R+14 must be the Congressional race in 2016.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  170. @157. Looks like he’s had another healthy slice of cowpie.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  171. So if you want to change that so that Government can regulate private property to force “free speech”. You can propose a Constitutional Amendment that modifies the 1st, 3rd…to remove the limitation of shall make no law. It says right there, you can petition the government for redress of your grievances, that’s your 1st Amendment right at work.

    How to explain this? They DID JUST THAT 100 years ago when the regulated common carriers.

    Congress has power over interstate commerce when it is actually interstate commerce. It can impose all kids of things as regulation. Such as: “obey 1st Amendment rules.”

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  172. What Congress cannot do is say: “Censor Libertarians.” But it CAN say “Do not Censor.”

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  173. Frankly, anyone who says “Private communications companies can censor whoever they want” is leading the charge for the Corporate State.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  174. You mean like “obey the 1st amendment” that only restricts the government from restricting speech.

    It’s 100% constitutional to censor as a private company, you can look up PragerU v. Youtube. PragerU tried to argue exactly that and was bounced in summary judgment, that has been the case since the words in the 1st amendment were written.

    Congress cannot say do not censor to private companies, they have no standing to say that.

    Colonel Klink (9275d8)

  175. The 2016 race in Ohio’s 12th Congressional district was not close. Not R+14 or +11 but +38 (I think)

    251,266 votes for Republican Pat Tiberi

    112,638 for Democratic Ed Albertson

    Total 2-party vote 363,904 or 69% for the Republican.

    This time:

    101,574 votes for Troy Balderson
    99,820 votes for Democrat Danny O’Connor

    Total 2-party vote: 201,394 (50.4% for the Republican)

    Over 3,000 mail ballots remain to be counted but they will nto be counted for 10 days.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  176. Klink, you are pretty much ignorant of 20th century constitutional law.

    Congress can regulate communications companies that serve as CARRIERS of other people’s speech. It can impose nearly any requirement on them EXCEPT it cannot require censorship. It can however require censorship’s lack.

    This is so much clearer than regulating wheat sales it’s silly to even argue the other side.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  177. Total 2-party vote: 201,394 (50.4% for the Republican)

    In 2014 the total vote was 216,816. Comparing midterm turnout to presidential years isn’t kosher.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  178. 190. Good point.

    I didn’t have tehsed figures either,

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  179. BTW, in 2014 the Republican won something like 70-30, so either the GOP candidate sucks badly, or the Dems came out in force.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4875 secs.