"Congress shall make no law..." On the contrary, if the Government forced these entities to allow this stuff, THAT would be a violation of free speech.
Parler App
- Thread starter Sophie1970
- Start date
"Congress shall make no law..." On the contrary, if the Government forced these entities to allow this stuff, THAT would be a violation of free speech.
Throw this into the conversation. How about when Purdue allowed activist Bill Ayers, the ADMITTED bomber but UNCONVICTED/NOT CHARGED from the Vietnam era (I believe Madison. WI was one of the targets....correct me if wrong), to speak about 4-5 years ago on campus? Does this make sense on a PUBLIC university paid for by tax $$$? Is this really free speech? Remember, he was violent and was unrepentent of the damage.
no they haven't but the subject is Parlor. I've never been on the site personally.
when huge firms work together to eliminate Parlor, to me the issue is really whether or not they're stifling competition and have created a monopoly that needs to be broken up.
you mean that is to protect unpopular speech? Where does this fit in on sec 230?
It’s funny that this is being posted on a website forum with TOS that allow them to get rid of any user for any reason
Nobody eliminated parler. It still exists and will pop back up if/when they find a new host. I'd bet they're back up and running in less than a week.
no where in the constitution does it separate HATE from free speech. So you are wrong. I should be able to name call you without having some censor say that is not free speech. Libtards defining free speech is not allowed. You a libtard? How about stupid libtard!!! Offended? Too bad...
Here’s the thing on 230 ... if it gets repealed, it will significantly limit the ability of a Parler or similar app to start up. They won’t be able to afford the legal staff or moderation controls that will be required.
But Twitter/FB/Google/Apple/Amazon sure will be able to do so. They have plenty of $$ and lawyers.
Congrats, you don't understand free speech.
Parler doesn’t compete with Apple and Google. Parler is a business partner. You have two separate companies- competitors - who have decided to stop doing business with a common partner. By definition, that isn’t a monopoly.
no, i agree.
but they're doing all they can do legally to make their service unavailable to the public. actually they're probably even helping Parlor by getting their name into the mainstream. I never really ever heard of Parlor until this came up
There’s a difference in hate speech/name calling and plotting violence.
Trump could tweet all day how stupid he thinks Pelosi/Schumer , etc are (and he has for the last 4 years). Nobody cared.
BTW ... I’m no lib ... lifelong member of what was the Republican Party.
Can AT&T terminate your phone call while in progress if they don't like what you are talking about ??
If 230 is repealed Trump, and lots of others, won't have accounts on these sites because it will be too big of a risk to the companies that run them.
Last edited:
it's a social media site isn't it? are they not competing for some of the same users and same advertising dollars?
competitors can also be partners. Look at companies like Boeing and Lockheed? they have many partnerships a but also compete for the same contracts at the time.
It’s only a dictatorship if they disagree with it. Trumpers will tear up the constitution and democracy to keep him in office on one hand, and then talk about how they love freedom, Democracy, and the USA on the other. They don’t even recognize their own hypocrisy.
I had Trump supporters telling me I didn’t honor my oath because I would not defend the President’s actions even though my oath says nothing about the President, only the Constitution. I had to follow lawful orders, and I did. Trump’s actions after the election fall into the category of “domestic enemy.”
Think coach Brohm wishes AWS would block all Purdue websites that don’t support the program?
Would LOVE to see an echo chamber created to only tell positive stories about Purdue sports! Would be great for the program. We’d likely win a natty by eliminating all negative thoughts on the internet.
To hell with all the thoughts of those who have anything negative to say about Purdue football!
Would LOVE to see an echo chamber created to only tell positive stories about Purdue sports! Would be great for the program. We’d likely win a natty by eliminating all negative thoughts on the internet.
To hell with all the thoughts of those who have anything negative to say about Purdue football!
i have no reason to want to offend you. This is a simple exercise in free speech. Founders thought it was ok to offend people with words. Just sayn.
I think they are doing all they can to dissociate themselves from a fringe site where lots of messages of violence are being passed around. Had Parler attempted to moderate themselves even slightly, they'd probably be fine.
I don’t think Apple and Google are competitors with Parler. Competitors can be partners, but that wouldn’t satisfy a monopoly charge. You’re really reaching here.
And if they started using it to arbitrarily ban people, there would be backlash. There are other places on the internet to discuss Purdue sports. If you don't like Apple or Google, you're screwed. They need to be not just broken up, but shattered into little tiny pieces. They have shown that they cannot be trusted to show any restraint with their power.It’s funny that this is being posted on a website forum with TOS that allow them to get rid of any user for any reason
The first amendment prevents Congress from creating a law to infringe on free speech. Not private companies.
Section 230 protects private companies from being liable for what is posted on their sites. It does not prevent in any way the private companies ability to set rules for what can be shared on their site.
The Supreme Court has established if you provide a certain product or service to the public that you can not discriminate and not offer that same product or service based on discrimination.
This does not mean a business cannot kick people out or deny service to someone who violates their rules of service.
Using the gay couple wedding cake. Business must make a cake they would for anyone else. Business can deny the request if they want to place a cake topper of two people having sex on the cake.
Parlor did not put any rules in place to prevent the spreading of lies, hate, violence, and inciting more riots. So Google and Apple banned their product.
This is would be the same as if a coffee shop was holding Nazi meetings at their location. The owner of the building can terminate their lease.
Nobodies rights have been infringed. Here is a suggestion to those people. Stop being stupid, disgusting, terrible human beings.
Section 230 protects private companies from being liable for what is posted on their sites. It does not prevent in any way the private companies ability to set rules for what can be shared on their site.
The Supreme Court has established if you provide a certain product or service to the public that you can not discriminate and not offer that same product or service based on discrimination.
This does not mean a business cannot kick people out or deny service to someone who violates their rules of service.
Using the gay couple wedding cake. Business must make a cake they would for anyone else. Business can deny the request if they want to place a cake topper of two people having sex on the cake.
Parlor did not put any rules in place to prevent the spreading of lies, hate, violence, and inciting more riots. So Google and Apple banned their product.
This is would be the same as if a coffee shop was holding Nazi meetings at their location. The owner of the building can terminate their lease.
Nobodies rights have been infringed. Here is a suggestion to those people. Stop being stupid, disgusting, terrible human beings.
Last edited:
Let me help...
1. Google and Apple are distributing the Parker App. They are not limiting what gan be on the Parker site. Parker just has to find a new way to distribute their app. Amazon HAS shut down Parler and as a private company has legal right to do so if their acceptable use policy is not being followed.
2. The first ammendment guarantees the the federal government will not implement rules that prohibit free speech. Since Amazon, Google, and Apple are private companies and not governmental entities they are under no obligation to allow free speech without consequences.
3. Sedition IS a terrorist act.
let me add (for fun)... this former Chicagoan rooting for the Saints in a few hours. Yep, like Drew a lot more than anyone in that inept franchise I used to support...
We used to communicate by means that have largely been replaced by Big Tech
Sad. Have to stay loyal to the Bears!!! I hope Drew throws for 4 TDS and loses (but i doubt the Bears can hang today!)
I received an email that was general in nature unaware of who might use parler that stated "AS OF SUNDAY NIGHT AT MIDNIGHT -- CEO OF PARLER SAYS AMAZON IS KICKING THEM OFF THEIR SERVERS - BELIEVES THEY CAN HAVE PARLER BACK UP AND RUNNING IN ABOUT A WEEK -- SAYS MANY COMPANIES ARE VYING FOR PARLER'S BUSINESS " I have no reason to believe or not believe this. Her information in the past has been better than many, but...who knows?
Would be nice if we could have a discussion with different ideologies about a complex situation without you being a righteous dipshit about it
Just reinforces my view of google, twitter, and the like
how fo you know they aren’t monitoring your calls/txt?
Reminds me of this news coverage of the Supreme Court decision
https://allanishac.medium.com/no-co...gay-weddings-supreme-court-rules-7c366b095796
Who determines what is “risky” speech? That’s the big question.
I’ve been following along quietly (don’t care enough on either side to post) - it’s interesting to see arguments, that might otherwise be acceptable, be ruined by insults. I respect and applaud those who’ve kept this intellectual and not personal. Gives me a little hope.
The bakers declined to make a cake for a specific purpose. They had not denied service because they were gay. They in fact had served the individuals on previous occasions. This has been the situation in all these cases. Much like if I a hetero male went in to get a wedding cake for my gay couple friends they would have declined.
This is why I say media bias is not what's reported, its often what's not reported.
They do and have w/o any issues.
When a website doesn’t moderate calls by people that are followed by millions of conspiracy theory loons to execute the VP, you don’t think those companies would be exposed to risk allowing that to happen?
If Trump or any of his people want to say something, they have a press briefing room and the largest news media network in the country.
