Well, you can if you modify the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include political speech.

California paid out $30 billion in false claims to criminals around the world during covid relief payments. You cannot name 2 people who have been fired, nor 1 who has gone to jail. For leftists that money could’ve bought 100% of Californians a covid test and vaccine. The the right that money is now in the hands of criminals in a state tying to de-police itself in most areas, not all. Beaches aren’t worth the hassle. Both sides got screwed. Good job protecting the real evil people, those robbing us blind and getting rich doing it. Real criminals. Real money gone. Drain the swamp!

I don't think you need to worry because you're a union supporting liberal.

I pity middle managers. Because one day they will have to explain their lives to St. Peter at the white gates.

What is considered the truth, what is considered racism and what is considered promoting violence are all things that should not be decided by people from the Silicon Valley bubble who are way out of step with the rest of the country on a wiiiide range of issues. Like I said: democracy crucially hinges on how public opinion is formed. If people with outsized influence on how people perceive the world and current events abuse their power to push a radical political agenda and silence dissenters, democracy is deformed.






But the argument then still applies to Senate and House races, doesn't it? How many ads from democratic candidates do we get each cycle in which they oppose their Republican opponent of being a threat to exactly these things? According to you, that would all be a lie. And according to your logic, it would also be meaningless whether a GOP seat is occupied by a Cheney/Kinzinger-type or by an MTG-type.

In regards to any legislation that opposes corporate power, sure.

And yeah, politicains grandstand and exaggerate the badness of their opponent. What's your point? Think I'm gonna defend Democrats as some bastion of virtue? lol

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 5 2022 09:03pm

The platforms themselves should decide the "line." What's considered racist on jsp is different than what's considered racist on Reddit which is different than Facebook. While we should be concerned about the power of Big Tech, their INACTION is far more destructive than their ACTIONS.

Democracy is deformed when people believe lies. That's why your family executed my wife's family. I know that it benefits you politically to push lies, racism, and violence but I'd argue that it'd be more beneficial if your side simply had better ideas.

Find me just ONE person who has been permanently banned from those platforms for merely expressing a "conservative POV" (i.e. we should lower taxes, we should teach the Bible in school, etc.)

Why isn't Richard Spencer banned yet?