Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Amazon
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rez Exelon" data-source="post: 3497811" data-attributes="member: 5800"><p>Google censorship and see if the definition agrees. By the textbook it's removing speech that is considered "obscene" amongst other stuff. </p><p></p><p>It's really not that much different than the 2A. Sure, people can say things like NICS checks, or needing CCW's or whatever are just trying to enforce decency and standards, but the hive mind here tends to call those infringements. The case that applies to "bleeping" dirty words like "-----" applies to bleeping people of inherent rights to self defense. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with you --- but fair warning, throughout this thread it seems like some people are okay with censoring as long as it's done equally. Or others say no but only because it's big tech company monopolies that do it. Either way they are private so they can do what they want as much as they want as long as it doesn't violate the ToS agreement they have with the people on the platforms. Even the whole "apply it equally" argument is kind of BS since, again it's private and legal they can do what they want. Kind of like how our employers (unless self employed or government) could fire us for almost anything. (Almost.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rez Exelon, post: 3497811, member: 5800"] Google censorship and see if the definition agrees. By the textbook it's removing speech that is considered "obscene" amongst other stuff. It's really not that much different than the 2A. Sure, people can say things like NICS checks, or needing CCW's or whatever are just trying to enforce decency and standards, but the hive mind here tends to call those infringements. The case that applies to "bleeping" dirty words like "-----" applies to bleeping people of inherent rights to self defense. I agree with you --- but fair warning, throughout this thread it seems like some people are okay with censoring as long as it's done equally. Or others say no but only because it's big tech company monopolies that do it. Either way they are private so they can do what they want as much as they want as long as it doesn't violate the ToS agreement they have with the people on the platforms. Even the whole "apply it equally" argument is kind of BS since, again it's private and legal they can do what they want. Kind of like how our employers (unless self employed or government) could fire us for almost anything. (Almost.) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Amazon
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom