Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 483262643046711308
Good Morning America
White Privilege, from an Asian perspective.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDsoyyJn1jU
WTF horse shit is this
Does anyone know who the DM's were from or the person who made the comment.........newbies, commies, etc. I'd just like to know. [ pissed ] 😡
@trusty rusty ✌ we need to get a couple of snap shots of those DM and return the favor what's good for the goose is good for the gander
@Deleted User Totally....my reason for asking.
@trusty rusty ✌ just woke up. What happened?
@trusty rusty ✌ I dont play that ganging up shit
Good morning everyone
Just got here . . .. what happened to Yoda??
They told him he hurt Gods cause and this channel. They used his love for God against him. Sounds very nasty. See his video
Probably the nasty gang..we all know, who they are
Where do I find his video, that sux they did that.
You have gained a rank @DallasDebi, you just advanced to 12 . Thanks for all you do Patriot!
YodaGM
@smiley .... https://youtu.be/lLTlQ8BR9mc
@DallasDebi scroll up...it's not far....
Thanks @Mixy
Got it on now!
@DallasDebi yw😀
In an opinion piece by Erin Dunne, published on August 6th, the author makes too basic assertions. Firstly, she argues correctly, that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment’s protection of speech. Secondly, she argues that private companies’ powers to regulate what speech is acceptable are not governed by the First Amendment. She succinctly states:
“Private companies, unlike government, are not beholden to court’s decisions on free speech. Facebook, Apple, and YouTube can all decide for themselves how to define hate speech and enforce that definition.
That makes sense. As private companies catering to users they have an obligation to shareholders to make a profit so they will pick a definition of hate speech that their users want and then enforce that.”
“For those who don’t like the chosen definition, there is also a simple solution: Don’t use those sites. This is how the market works. If you don’t like the terms of service then then there are other options (or soon will be). Companies want your business.
Unlike subscribing to the laws of the United States, the user agreements of social media companies are optional.”
https://www.abeldanger.org/he-big-tech-companies-are-just-contract-mercenaries-for-the-u-s-intelligence-agencies/
Under most circumstances I would agree with Ms. Dunne’s second point, but the current case in question is quite different than any past case study in a private entity’s constitutional requirements where freedom of speech are concerned. Firstly, just a handful of big tech companies control virtually all social media platforms, effectively operating an illegal, anti-free market monopoly. This is not a normal, or even legal form of private business in the United States. Secondly, these companies are banning individuals and groups in coordination with one another and at the behest of special interests groups, including current federal government legislators, the mass media, and former federal intelligence agency officials....