Lord Jamar says keep censoring because thought crimes will be a thing

[Justin Nitsuj]

Yep welcome to the new world, where it will be illegal to have independent thoughts.
You would think that with all this technology and free information, humanity would have smartened up and see the playbook they running and change. But nope, history always ends up repeating itself.

 

[Complexion]

Social media been the first step, all these people getting cancelled on Twitter and accounts being flagged.

So much game from Eddie in that special and this is exactly why they went after comedians so hard because since back in the Jester days he was the only one who could tell the truth freely. Same with Katt and Dave as opposed to the entertainers who just want a check and don't encourage their audience to think.

Those who know, know as they see it and those that don't need to be spoon fed and then will turn around and reject it because.... "Thats not what the TV/official narrative/everyone else says" as they manufacture proof and lie to themselves.

Watchu gonna do? Watchu gonna do? Watchu gonna do when the verbal morality statute machine comes for you?

 

[LiveFromLondon]

That's fukking stupid. No group of people tolerate that nonsense but your clown ass wants blacks to be docile and let any semblance of disrespect and dehumanization pass


fukk you

So free speech should only be something you agree with either you 12 or stupid

 

[HarlemHottie]

So free speech should only be something you agree with either you 12 or stupid

Meanwhile, in the country we broke away from, they arresting ppl for saying "fukk the monarchy." It's like y'all missed the whole point of the revolution.

Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as the 'Not My King' tag grows

And before anybody gets in their extra pro black militant bag, yes, i realize it didnt initially apply to us, but fukk all that. Pull down your skirt and act like a damn citizen of a republic. They depend on citizens who bytch up not defending their own rights.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

So free speech should only be something you agree with either you 12 or stupid

He's right. Pushback against speech you find insulting is not a violation of the concept of free speech. Free speech is a two way street.

These alt right "free speech" cacs just want to disparage people with impunity, and you bought into their definition.

 

[Toe Jay Simpson]

You never hear nobody talking about free speech when its something positive

It’s always because somebody wants to or has said something messed up to someone else and they just want to get away with it

 

[BornStar]

I mean I get the sentiment but if you're a supporter of free speech you also have to defend the right to free speech of people you disagree with. Lets not be children here

Nah breh
Only things I agree with should be allowed to be said. Thats it.

Echo chamber shyt.

Spoiler

You hear that?
Hear that?
Hear That?
hear that?

 

[Blackgate]

Im never going to defend the speech of a fascist or white racist because they dont believe in freedom of speech and they think black people shouldnt have any rights at all.

 

[Roger king]

Free speech always somehow turns to not wanting to suffer any adverse consequences of your thoughts, actions or words

 

[EA]

I still don’t get how grown ass people don’t understand that absolute free speech isn’t protected on social media platforms. These platforms are privately owned companies with T&Cs and community guidelines. If they feel like you are saying things that violates any policies or guidelines, they can ban you at their discretion.

It’s really not a hard concept to grasp

 

[HarlemHottie]

I still don’t get how grown ass people don’t understand that absolute free speech isn’t protected on social media platforms. These platforms are privately owned companies with T&Cs and community guidelines. If they feel like you are saying things that violates any policies or guidelines, they can ban you at their discretion.

It’s really not a hard concept to grasp

Most of these platforms' development was funded by the American tax payer (see: darpa and lifelog, etc) and have since become the modern 'public square'. Theres a reason The Serious People are debating this. If presidents break news on it, and we paid for it, its public. Stop defending their right to silence you.

I seen it coming since Farrakhan was deplatformed, yall dumb af.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Most of these platforms' development was funded by the American tax payer (see: darpa and lifelog, etc) and have since become the modern 'public square'. Theres a reason The Serious People are debating this. If presidents break news on it, and we paid for it, its public. Stop defending their right to silence you.

I seen it coming since Farrakhan was deplatformed, yall dumb af.

The government has no right to compel any private entity to host content that violates its rules. FOH with this "modern day public square" shyt. Where does it end? Would you be ok with governmwnt forcing the Coli to allow white supremacists to post here?

The height of irony is these right wingers that are trying to use government to force their views were the ones that campaigned against the Fairness Doctrine that forced OTA news to give equal coverage to both sides. After its demise, you got right wing hate radio and echo chambers like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Now that liberals control a lot of the large social media companies, they want to cry.

 

[EA]

Most of these platforms' development was funded by the American tax payer (see: darpa and lifelog, etc) and have since become the modern 'public square'. Theres a reason The Serious People are debating this. If presidents break news on it, and we paid for it, its public. Stop defending their right to silence you.

I seen it coming since Farrakhan was deplatformed, yall dumb af.

Large social media platforms being a public square is exactly why these companies have a responsibility to have community guidelines. We saw what happens when moderation doesn’t take place in 2016 when misinformation was pushed globally to influence multiple elections.

Also, absolute free speech means anything other than inciting violence and sending threats would be allowed. So considering that alone, I’m not gonna advocate for zero censorship when I know that it would result in black people receiving more racial abuse online.

 

[HarlemHottie]

The government has no right to compel any private entity to host content that violates its rules. FOH with this "modern day public square" shyt. Where does it end? Would you be ok with governmwnt forcing the Coli to allow white supremacists to post here?

The height of irony is these right wingers that are trying to use government to force their views were the ones that campaigned against the Fairness Doctrine that forced OTA news to give equal coverage to both sides. After its demise, you got right wing hate radio and echo chambers like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Now that liberals control a lot of the large social media companies, they want to cry.

Lets not play these games. I was very clear on two conditions: a, that the American tax payer was funding it, and b, as a sign of its very public nature, presidents break news there. Do either of those conditions apply to the coli?

If you believe that those people are liberals, it explains a lot. I'll leave it there.

 

[HarlemHottie]

Large social media platforms being a public square is exactly why these companies have a responsibility to have community guidelines

No, thats two different points. If they constitute the modern public square, as American companies, they should be abiding by our free speech laws.

They sure believe in free speech when they're inciting riots overseas.

Edit: About bp receiving abuse online. Yall really have to pull yourselves together. Win on the strength of your argument, not by the strength of the jews behind you. Talk to your countrymen and argue them down with facts, its not hard. Yall so scary, early internet woulda burned your soul.