4 ms·

I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Do you have any examples to back up yo

I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Do you have any examples to back up your statement? Keep in mind we're talking about silencing political dissent, that's pretty fucking major, not a "oh both sides do it, that's life" thing.

mbg721 5y ago
I'm thinking more of the Satanism scares of the 80s. Republicans have never really had the mass-media on their side post-Watergate (except maybe briefly after 9/11), so they can't silence anyone in the "fortifying the election" sense.
AlexandrB 5y ago
Marco Rubio just proposed a bill to stop corporations from being too "woke"[1]. There are also numerous instances of Republican politicians complaining or proposing bills about things like athletes kneeling during the anthem, burning of the flag, or other forms of expressions they deem "un-American". That's not even mentioning the Republican obsession with controlling "obscenity" on TV and other public media. [1] https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rubio-bill-helps-shareholders-fight-back-against-woke-corporations https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rub...
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Read it again, it doesn't stop them, it puts them on record. Not comparable to silencing speech of citizens. Choose a better whataboutism in your defense of censorship, not just Marco lol.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    I'm not defending anything. I'm responding to your statement that Republicans don't want to censor speech. > I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. They very clearly do! Even setting aside the Rubio bill, you did not respond to either the "you must be patriotic"[1][2] or the "obscenity"[3][4] type of censorship that Republicans love to pursue. [1] https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/tennessee-senate-republicans-national-anthem-college-funding-cut/6803920002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/te... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-gop-anthem-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-g... [3] https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vigorously-e/ https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vi... [4] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-representatives-call-on-barr-to-prosecute-obscene-pornography/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-represen...
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public indecency. I don't support evangelicals argument against pornography using obscenity but it's not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. 4. Same point as above. Note that the main difference of these events are the severity and scale. It's many national level Democrats coordinating to censor political speech on a private platform by creating a fake "whistleblower" vs some kneeling at a basketball game or porn laws. I agree that those few Republicans are wrong, but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        > Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign. Can you support the claim that Frances Haugen is a "fake whistleblower" created as part of a Democrat party censorship campaign with evidence?
        hunterb123 5y ago
        They would provide no evidence, sorry, I can only offer you common sense. She's a long time liberal activist and the Democrats had this whole shit show ready to go at the same time she came out. There is evidence that they are doing a censorship campaign, by their calls for censorship.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        I don't think that's enough signal to disambiguate "coordinate use of a 'fake whistleblower' against Facebook" from simple fortune. Some members of the Democratic party want to rein in Facebook and other big-tech companies; of that I have no doubt. But "big tech" in general has been shedding whistle-blowers for years now as individuals find their consciences no longer let them play the game... My 'common sense' tells me if it weren't Frances Haugen, it'd have been someone else.
enumjorge 5y ago
> Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Bullshit. A lot of their base is adamant about quoting the bill of rights when it serves them and looking the other way when it doesn't. Highly doubt most of them can even list all the amendments of the bill of rights they claim to be so passionate about. There's amendments in there about due process, yet you'll see the right defend cops using excessive force on people they arrest even if it ends in death. That's effectively a death sentence without a trial. As far as speech, the right's embrace of "free speech" is recent and superficial. It wasn't so long ago that conservative groups in this country were trying to ban portrayals of gay people on mass media, with the same "think of the children" excuse that another comment on this thread was complaining about. That has only receded because they lost that culture war, but I'm sure they would gladly erase LGBT folks from popular culture if they could.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Alright, find something recent. We're talking about current censorship. No amount of whataboutism will make what the Dems are currently doing ok. As a libertarian in the wing I know full well about the past of the evangelicals, doesn't make censorship okay does it?

mbg721 5y ago

I'm thinking more of the Satanism scares of the 80s. Republicans have never really had the mass-media on their side post-Watergate (except maybe briefly after 9/11), so they can't silence anyone in the "fortifying the election" sense.

AlexandrB 5y ago

Marco Rubio just proposed a bill to stop corporations from being too "woke"[1]. There are also numerous instances of Republican politicians complaining or proposing bills about things like athletes kneeling during the anthem, burning of the flag, or other forms of expressions they deem "un-American". That's not even mentioning the Republican obsession with controlling "obscenity" on TV and other public media. [1] https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rubio-bill-helps-shareholders-fight-back-against-woke-corporations https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rub...

hunterb123 5y ago
Read it again, it doesn't stop them, it puts them on record. Not comparable to silencing speech of citizens. Choose a better whataboutism in your defense of censorship, not just Marco lol.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  I'm not defending anything. I'm responding to your statement that Republicans don't want to censor speech. > I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. They very clearly do! Even setting aside the Rubio bill, you did not respond to either the "you must be patriotic"[1][2] or the "obscenity"[3][4] type of censorship that Republicans love to pursue. [1] https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/tennessee-senate-republicans-national-anthem-college-funding-cut/6803920002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/te... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-gop-anthem-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-g... [3] https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vigorously-e/ https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vi... [4] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-representatives-call-on-barr-to-prosecute-obscene-pornography/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-represen...
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public indecency. I don't support evangelicals argument against pornography using obscenity but it's not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. 4. Same point as above. Note that the main difference of these events are the severity and scale. It's many national level Democrats coordinating to censor political speech on a private platform by creating a fake "whistleblower" vs some kneeling at a basketball game or porn laws. I agree that those few Republicans are wrong, but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      > Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign. Can you support the claim that Frances Haugen is a "fake whistleblower" created as part of a Democrat party censorship campaign with evidence?
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        They would provide no evidence, sorry, I can only offer you common sense. She's a long time liberal activist and the Democrats had this whole shit show ready to go at the same time she came out. There is evidence that they are doing a censorship campaign, by their calls for censorship.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        I don't think that's enough signal to disambiguate "coordinate use of a 'fake whistleblower' against Facebook" from simple fortune. Some members of the Democratic party want to rein in Facebook and other big-tech companies; of that I have no doubt. But "big tech" in general has been shedding whistle-blowers for years now as individuals find their consciences no longer let them play the game... My 'common sense' tells me if it weren't Frances Haugen, it'd have been someone else.

enumjorge 5y ago

> Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Bullshit. A lot of their base is adamant about quoting the bill of rights when it serves them and looking the other way when it doesn't. Highly doubt most of them can even list all the amendments of the bill of rights they claim to be so passionate about. There's amendments in there about due process, yet you'll see the right defend cops using excessive force on people they arrest even if it ends in death. That's effectively a death sentence without a trial. As far as speech, the right's embrace of "free speech" is recent and superficial. It wasn't so long ago that conservative groups in this country were trying to ban portrayals of gay people on mass media, with the same "think of the children" excuse that another comment on this thread was complaining about. That has only receded because they lost that culture war, but I'm sure they would gladly erase LGBT folks from popular culture if they could.

hunterb123 5y ago
Alright, find something recent. We're talking about current censorship. No amount of whataboutism will make what the Dems are currently doing ok. As a libertarian in the wing I know full well about the past of the evangelicals, doesn't make censorship okay does it?