- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Diamond and Silk Geaux to Washington
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:00 pm
I think Sean Hannity is annoying - but I do love Diamond and Silk. I attach this article because I love this video.
These ladies testified to Congress today about how Facebook censored them. I think It’s a legitimate federal issue, and preserving free speech should be one of our highest priorities.
The line of questioning by Democrat (cough commmunist) seeks to shame them because they wanted to make money off their videos.
When he tells Diamond that “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend” she responds “Mmmhuh. They hard too.” I love that woman. I want to hang out and drink cocktails with her.
Hannity LINK with video
These ladies testified to Congress today about how Facebook censored them. I think It’s a legitimate federal issue, and preserving free speech should be one of our highest priorities.
The line of questioning by Democrat (cough commmunist) seeks to shame them because they wanted to make money off their videos.
When he tells Diamond that “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend” she responds “Mmmhuh. They hard too.” I love that woman. I want to hang out and drink cocktails with her.
Hannity LINK with video
This post was edited on 4/26/18 at 6:01 pm
4
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:35 pm to Wednesday
Absolutely shameful that they deployed the CBC as the attack dogs on Diamond and Silk. However, D&S gave it back to them ten fold. Especially enjoyed the exchange with Sheila Jackson Lee....and Gohmert telling her "the Gentle Lady's time is up" repeatedly.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:40 pm to EagleEye99
They destroyed Sheila Jackson Lee.
frick that count
frick that count
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:54 pm to CptBengal
quote:The things I miss during the day because I have a job.
They destroyed Sheila Jackson Lee.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 6:58 pm to CptBengal
quote:
They destroyed Sheila Jackson Lee.
I don't know how they didn't start their reply with, "Aw, HAYELL Naw!" because I would have at that point.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:00 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
The things I miss during the day because I have a job.
It's on YouTube. Its 5 minutes long. I watch after work...
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:01 pm to Wednesday
quote:
These ladies testified to Congress today about how Facebook censored them. I think It’s a legitimate federal issue, and preserving free speech should be one of our highest priorities.
Can someone explain to me why they think a private company censoring speech is a federal issue?
Eta: or to really stoke the downvotes- can someone explain to me how any company can violate their customers free speech rights?
This post was edited on 4/26/18 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:03 pm to Wednesday
How many lies were Diamond and Silk caught in today?
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:08 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Can someone explain to me why they think a private company censoring speech is a federal issue?
They are a publicly traded company...
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:18 pm to Toddy
As many as the number of vaginas you touched today
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:28 pm to LSURulzSEC
quote:
They are a publicly traded company...
Not owned by the govt...
Can anyone explain why a publicly traded company censoring someone is a federal issue, much less a violation of someones rights?
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:43 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Can someone explain to me why they think a private company censoring speech is a federal issue? Eta: or to really stoke the downvotes- can someone explain to me how any company can violate their customers free speech rights?
Facebook receives immunity under the Communications Act because they claim to be a neutral public forum. If they are they can’t censor people for political speech or they are breaking the law. If they want to censor they certainly have the right to, they just need to announce they are not a neutral public forum, but as of now they are in violation of the law if they do it.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:49 pm to lsu480
If they are they can’t censor people for political speech or they are breaking the law.
So if Chicken decides to ban all liberals, you think he's liable to lose a lawsuit in court?
So if Chicken decides to ban all liberals, you think he's liable to lose a lawsuit in court?
Posted on 4/26/18 at 7:53 pm to NYNolaguy1
If he receives immunity under the Communicatin Act...possibly. I need to read up on that.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 8:06 pm to NYNolaguy1
Hank Johnson needs to go back to his Guam investigation and island stability. Just goes to show you the mental deficiencies the people of Georgia have to keep electing this clown.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 8:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Can someone explain to me why they think a private company censoring speech is a federal issue?
Isn’t the left pushing the whole Russian interference scandal because of some ads on Facebook? Apparently Facebook influences elections. If they influence elections, censorship of alternative views may be a big deal.
Posted on 4/26/18 at 10:03 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Can someone explain to me why they think a private company censoring speech is a federal issue?
Facebook does business in all 50’states, and around the world making it subject to legislation by Congress pursuant to the commerce clause. Per Federal Law, they are potentially a public forum. I’m not saying under existing statutory or constitutional law that there is a clear answer to whether what Facebook has probably done to conservative commentators is illegal, but I think it is within
Congress’s authority, if not constitutional duties to determine whether such conduct (by Facebook or other social media outlets) SHOULD be illegal. I usually believe congressional hearings are grandstanding bullshite, but in this case they may actually be helpful in determining whether statutory protections SHOULD be enacted.
Moreover, public accommodation laws already protect against racial, sexual and religious discrimination. Should there be protection regarding political discrimination that can be enacted statutorily?
Those are important federal questions, or in other words federal “issues” that should be evaluated by congress.
This post was edited on 4/26/18 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 4/27/18 at 4:49 am to Wednesday
Another prime example of how racist liberals are. They can’t stand to see black people actually think for themselves
Posted on 4/27/18 at 5:08 am to lsu480
quote:
Facebook receives immunity under the Communications Act because they claim to be a neutral public forum. If they are they can’t censor people for political speech or they are breaking the law. If they want to censor they certainly have the right to, they just need to announce they are not a neutral public forum, but as of now they are in violation of the law if they do it.
cant have your cake and eat it to and that is what they have been attempting.
Facebook has to decide if it is a free open forum which recieves immunity or not.
Personaally I think they should be treated as a utility just as ISP's should.
Posted on 4/27/18 at 7:09 am to HeadChange
quote:
Isn’t the left pushing the whole Russian interference scandal because of some ads on Facebook?
The filth don’t even realize how stupid they are for being so contradicting! Dat Dem Double Standard.
I never really bought into D&S but I’m woke now. They kicked arse!
This post was edited on 4/27/18 at 7:11 am
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News