4
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 4 points ago

Lights and sirens code3 huh the objective might not have been crowd control here, more like en route to officer needing assistance call, and these shitheads were preventing them from responding

6
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 6 points ago
  • Roberts ruling: Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,".

  • Kavanaugh dissent: California's current 25% occupancy limit on churches amounts to "discrimination against religious worship services. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries,"

7
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 7 points ago

Turn Tweets into memes they’ll spread faster and last longer. Laughing at the commies is the greatest weapon we got.

4
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 4 points ago

Matt Uhrin a Fed Ex driver and veteran who confronted 15 flag burning Democrats with his fire extinguisher. Big props to this patriot

19
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 19 points ago

The militia men in Michigan didn’t loot, didn’t smash police cars, didn’t commit arson, grand theft or destruction of private property.

Peaceful protest vs. Criminal acts. Guess which one the media glorifies

22
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 22 points ago

Here it is ladies and gents

Sec. 2. Protections Against Arbitrary Restrictions. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear, nondiscriminatory ground rules promoting free and open debate on the Internet. Prominent among those rules is the immunity from liability created by section 230 (c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230). 47 U.S.C. 230. It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified. Section 230 (c) was designed to address court decisions from the early days of the Internet holding that an online platform that engaged in any editing or restriction of content posted by others thereby became itself a “publisher” of the content and could be liable for torts like defamation. As the title of section 230 (c) makes clear, the provision is intended to provide liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform like Twitter) that engages in “Good Samaritan’ blocking” of content when the provider deems the content (in the terms of subsection 230 (c) (2) (A)) obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. Subsection 230 (c) (1) broadly states that no provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of content provided by another person. But subsection 230(c) (2) qualifies that principle when the provider edits the content provided by others. Subparagraph (c) (2) specifically addresses protections from “civil liability” and clarifies that a provider is protected from liability when it acts in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” The provision does not extend to deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online content or actions inconsistent with an online platform’s terms of service. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c) (2) (A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. By making itself an editor of content outside the protections of subparagraph (c) (2) (A), such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a “publisher or speaker” under subsection 230 (c) (1), which properly applies only to a provider that merely provides a platform for content supplied by others. It is the policy of the United States that all departments and agencies should apply section 230 (c) according to the interpretation set out in this section.

11
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 11 points ago

What’s stands out all throughout that podcast is that Vijaya keeps saying Twitter uses censorship “to keep users safe” , and bans accounts that “don’t comply” because “safety” is her main goal.

She sounds just like a democrat govenor

5
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 5 points ago

Exactly
Why Freedom of Speech Is Necessary | Jordan B Peterson Free speech is not just another value. It's the foundation of Western civilization. Freedom of speech is important in order to keep your mind organized. Without free speech there is no argument, no dialogue, no discussion and no true thought. The reason you think is so that your thoughts can die instead of you".

3
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 3 points ago

The real collusion: https://mobile.twitter.com/vijaya/status/491403551508160512

Vijaya Gadde, lead counsel, head of Twitter censorship. Controls the expressions of 330 million people, allows pedophiles and ISIS to use platform but bans conservatives for tweetting « learn to code »

view more: Next ›