Zed calls the removal of pornography from public school libraries "mass censorship of libraries."

I remember when DeSantis started showing illustrations in some of these books to news outlets they had to cut their Fred because the material was too sexually explicit for their viewing audience.

Yeah, that happened.

It happened Zed. Deal with it.

" You're full of horse apples. It was Gender Queer and it's not sexually explicit"

The eff it isn't. Illustration of a BJ. Illustration of butt sex. Explicit sexual descriptions. The author rates the book as 18+

Gotta love AI

" Gender Queer includes a handful of sexually explicit illustrations which have been used to argue that the book is inappropriate for minors."

" Comparing private conduct with government conduct in a First Amendment discussion? Nothing relegates you to children's table quicker.

#76 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2025-02-17 11:28 PM | FLAG: "

How about when a private tech company censors at the behest of government.?

Et Al,

Based on prior case law, my understanding is that the government cannot utilize the private sector as a conduit to act on its behalf to take actions the Constitution prohibits the government from doing on its own.

Apparently that happed with both Twitter and Facebook. And that's just what has been brought into light so far.

" Acknowledge this as a hypothetical or offer some evidence suggesting it actually happened. Be specific or STFU.

#79 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2025-02-18 12:08 AM | FLAG: "

Twitter files. Zuckerberg flat out stating that it happened with META.

Laugh away. It exposed a lot.

#88. This is such a circular discussion with you. I've cited Supreme Court rulings on this issue. 3 old school journalists were given unfettered access to what took place at Twitter. Zuckerberg gave examples to Rogan during a podcast.

The good news is that it's being halted, at least for now. My guess is you are thoroughly pissed off about that.

I've given all sorts of proof on several occasions, Laura Mohr.

His response always is, "Nuh uh!"

Regardless, things are changing for the better on this issue, at least short term.

I've given all sorts of proof on several occasions, Laura Mohr.

His response always is, "Nuh uh!"

Regardless, things are changing for the better on this issue, at least short term.

" What it can't do is coerce"

When they start issuing threats the coming coercion is implied. Do we really want social media companies doing the bidding of the federal government in terms of message control?

" And transcript, please. I'm certainly not going to take "your word".

#98 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-02-18 01:00 PM | FLAG: | "

In the sentence prior you acknowledged what he said. Obviously you know what I'm referring to so why ask for a transcript?

I'm not interested in relitigating the same argument over and over again.

The good news is, at least for now, the tide is turning. My guess is tamping back the censorship royally pisses you off.

Im also guessing you'd probably feel differently if Zuckerberg were to claim that members of the Trump administration were screaming at his team and demanding censorship and messaging control.

#107. Danforth and I have had this discussion on several occasions. It's my fault for bringing it up. I won't do that again. For now, I'll take joy that the censorship industrial complex is winding down, at least temporarily.

At this point, I don't care. Again, I am happy to see the censorship industrial complex begin to crumble. Hopefully it lasts

There is a reason lefties were outraged when Zuckerberg ditched the so-called 'fact-checkers' and moved toward a X-model of community notes. It's a loss of control of the narrative and I am absolutely enjoying it.

"Yeah...he was capitulating to government censorship."

How do you figure?

I've given you links in the past and you dismissed them. I am not going to continually jump through hoops for you.

You expressed an opinion, all I am asking for is some clarification. Don't want to give it? Fine.

"You don't enter a closed door meeting and then come out agreeing with everything the other party is demanding unless there was some leverage applied.

#119 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK"

Interesting take. Everything Twitter Files exposed was behind closed doors. When Zuckerberg went on Rogan's podcast everything he claimed occurred behind closed doors. You and Danforth need to hash this out. Because he sees it VERY differently than you do.

Take it up with Clownshack, Danforth.

He's making at least as forceful of a case as I am.

I've moved on and am delighted that this garbage is winding down, at least for now. And you seem REALLY pissed off about losing the narrative due to a lack of coordination between government and tech giants. It seems very clear based on what you are getting upset about, but more importantly what you are NOT addressing by omission.

Take it up with Clownshack, Laura Mohr. He made the same argument I've been making although in my case the examples are WAY more numerous and more well-documented. He simply speculated but certainly wasn't naive with his speculation.

I mean.....

""There is a reason lefties were outraged when Zuckerberg ditched the so-called 'fact-checkers'"

Yeah...he was capitulating to government censorship. Much like the "settled" bribe, er, lawsuit.

#115 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-02-19 12:47 AM | FLAG: "

Exact same thing. Danforth doesn't even have Zuckerberg claiming to have been pressured by the Trump team, yet he's already drawn that conclusion with ZERO actual proof that he keeps haranguing me for on the other end.

But, that's (D)ifferent, right?

"How so?

#132 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK"

Scroll up. If you can't figure it out on your own, I am of no help to you.