Freedom of speech is the core of the story.

I mean, Democrats were in power, just in the House and not the White House.

There’s a huge difference between a news outlet (or whatever Infowars and the World Net Daily are) choosing not to cover a story and what amounts to the virtual town square actively working to suppress and subvert freedom of the press. 

The University of California is public, so I’m not even sure it’s legally allowed to withhold the information from the media if it’s made via a public records request. It seems like grandstanding.

Texas is the 9th largest economy in the world, just ahead of Canada and behind Brazil. Most large telecommunications companies like Amazon, Facebook, AT&T, and Google have large campuses in Texas. If the companies were willing to pull out of such a lucrative market the first time it passed a regulation like this it…

A better analogy would be how many states protect business owners from refusing service or discriminating against their customers because of their religion, race, political affiliation, self-professed gender, et cetera or how telephone companies are regulated as common carrier and can be forced to accept all paying…

Forbidding communications platforms from discriminating against lawful speech isn’t forcing anything on anyone. You can choose whether or not to listen to someone, just as you can do on the telephone or in the public square. If it’s an intentional lie that actually harms you, then you can sue for defamation.

Then you don’t really understand liberalism, or the Enlightenment values this country was founded upon, the idea of Voltaire that I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. It’s the same reason the ACLU jealously defended the civil rights of neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, and other…

I think this works better with VoIP than with bluetooth. You can get something like ObiHai and use your old phone wiring in your house for your VoIP number. You can even get a e911 service added to it and use it for emergencies.

Technically, the National Guard can be called up by the President under federal orders to enforce the Constitution under the Insurrection Act. That happened in enforcing desegregation. The National Guard was federalized and worked with active duty troops to enforce desegregation.

Here in California, stores that serve as public forums, such as shopping malls, generally cannot kick you out for exercising your first amendment rights, even if it’s offensive to employees. It’s a violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. So, if it’s the online equivalent, then it should be…

If you’re going to keep beating down the same strawman, there’s no point in continuing the discussion. Nobody is arguing that, on its own, the first amendment does anything but apply to the federal government. That’s a strawman you built

This is false. The first amendment applies to all speech. And the federal courts have used the first amendment as a basis for defining what speech is lawful and what speech is lawful. And this applies no matter where you’re speaking.

It’s absolutely a strawman. Nobody is arguing that the First Amendment, on its own, applies to anything but the federal government. People who care about civil liberties are concerned that speech protected by the first amendment is being censored on the de facto modern day public squares and advocating for a loosening…

This is a strawman argument. It’s used by those who lack the ability to address the actual argument, and the fact that it’s become the go-to of authoritarians who don’t believe in free speech is pretty telling.

I mean, child porn is already illegal under US law, so I’m not sure why you would bring it up. Twitter could provide a filter to remove references to Nazis for those who want a safe space.

I mean, I’m not sure that I would agree with that. At least on Twitter, the Babylon Bee was banned because of satire. The New York Post was banned because of journalism. Now, maybe you don’t think it was very good satire or very good journalism. But it clearly was speech protected under the first amendment. So even if…

I’m pretty sure that most suburban families can afford a bus ticket to Denver, or whatever the Mecca for women making abortion pilgrimages becomes. Heck, I heard that some suburban white women and their daughters even own automobiles and have drivers licenses.

I mean, if that were true, then it should be evident by its performance in markets that don’t have a significant potential segment of viewers with an Anglo-American sense of political correctness, like Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. But I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s been performing any less…