Biden White House Officially Craps On 1st Amendment

[b]
Biden White House Wages War on 1st Amendment, ‘We Support the Need For Social Media Platforms to Take Steps to Reduce Hate Speech’[/b]

When asked if Biden supports the continued ban of Trump from social media, Psaki said the Biden White House supports “the need for social media platforms to continue to take steps to reduce hate speech.”

[b]There is no such thing as “hate speech” and the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed this many times.[/b]

All speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, but the Biden White House openly admits it is working with Big Tech to censor and ban conservatives under the guise of ‘reducing hate speech.’

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

The intent here is to block completely bogus conspiracy theories like QAnon. Free speech does not cover deliberately false accusations and incitement to violence. BTW QAnon is just as false as the insane and ridiculous "Pizza-Gate" story that preceded it.

FYI Always cross-check information with a variety of sources. A good way to tell if a site is spreading disinformation and lies is if it tells you that all other sources are to be disbelieved.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@badminton [quote]The intent here is to block completely bogus conspiracy theories[/quote]

Your intentions are cute.

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction

Enkis · 26-30, M

@Budwick this is unilaterally not what the constitution says. If this were the case, there would not be libel or slander lawsuits.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@Enkis I never said I was quoting the Constitution.

You sure jump to a lot of conclusions there counselor.

Enkis · 26-30, M

@Budwick your post title literally says "Biden White House Officially Craps On 1st Amendment".

Im starting to suspect you are a gaslighter arguing in bad faith.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Enkis · 26-30, M

@Budwick if you truly are arguing in good faith, tell me which part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@Enkis You've proven yourself to be a nitpicker so, "tell me which part" which part of what?
In what context.
Are you referring to a previous comment of mine?
I'm good, but I can't read your mind.

Enkis · 26-30, M

@Budwick which part of the first amendment (as copied below) are being infringed by Bidenin regards to social media? You have yet to say how it violates the constitution and continue to dodge the question. I am referring to your entire central grievance.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@Enkis Clearly Biden is aiding the media platforms to squelch free speech of users that have opposing ideas.

Enkis · 26-30, M

@Budwick Did he pass a law to that effect? Or force media platforms to do that against their wishes?

The answer to both is no. The first amendment has not been ignored, threatened, or violated.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@Enkis Biden isn't into legislation.
He just signs EO's and says stupid stuff.

No he didn't force the platforms to be jackwads.
Biden simply encouraged them to do so.

Enkis · 26-30, M

@Budwick But he didnt sign an EO regarding social media, so... 😉

ronisme1 · 61-69, M

@Budwick you mean like trump encouraged all the rioters to attack the Congress building?

Budwick · 70-79, M

@ronisme1 Hi Ronnie!
I am encouraging you to take a long walk on a short pier.

This message was deleted by the author of the main post.

Enkis · 26-30, M

@swirlie I was trying the unenviable position of trying to be respectful to the disrespectful and intellectually converse with the unintellectual. I know, I am naive lol.

I should have taken my usual stance of don't debate politics or religion since they are impervious to reason and that there are no winners in online arguments, only losers. 😜

monte3 · 70-79, M

@Enkis hmm you sound too wise for SW!
Seriously you dad an exemplary job of exposing Jackbud. 👍

Budwick · 70-79, M

@monte3 Ya think?
It looked more like Pinkus was confused.

This message was deleted by the author of the main post.