Doing this would actually work to reduce violence and aggression.I wonder if the responses would have been different if this hotel had reacted by noting that the patron who shot someone was a man, and reacted by banning all males (of whatever race)?
I'm not sure I'm even making a political point there, as it seems like that argument could go either way.
Doing this would actually work to reduce violence and aggression.
They will easily win their Civil Right suit, as the owner clearly discriminated against them based on race and posted their intent to do so publicly and then acted on that intent at least twice. It is pretty much as open and closed case as they come.
The more interesting one is the suit claiming that the hotel is on tribal grounds and that they are trespassing based on the 1868 treaty giving the black hills to the Tribe. That treaty has never been enforced by the US government, but based on several recent SCOTUS decisions it should be legally binding. And that opens another massive can of worms.
No, no i don't. Enlighten me.Look who decided to show off the fact that he still doesn't understand protected classes.
Twitter can't ban people for being black, for example, because race is a protected class, no matter how much you wish it were not.No, no i don't. Enlighten me.
I'd certainly disagree with you on protected religion. We've certainly seen enough of exceptions to it. Also the exceptions of differently abled. Tourette's syndrome sufferers as an example. I did like gave the religious "cult" example in your President Trump supporters, negating your earlier claim.Twitter can't ban people for being black, for example, because race is a protected class, no matter how much you wish it were not.
Examples of protected classes:
race
religion
disabled
Examples of categories of people not protected:
Trump voters (even though they are mostly all white!)
Trump worshipers (even though it looks like a cult!)
Republicans (just above the mental disability line, sometimes)
The fact that you exist is proof, that if there is an afterlife, there has to be some concept of hell for your ilk to go to, otherwise it would all be pointless.I'd certainly disagree with you on protected religion. We've certainly seen enough of exceptions to it. Also the exceptions of differently abled. Tourette's syndrome sufferers as an example. I did like gave the religious "cult" example in your President Trump supporters, negating your earlier claim.
Just admit it, anything you can do to silence any and all political speech and dissent, no matter how fascist your opinion is, is perfectly fine with you and the leftist Authoritarian supporters in this forum.
Well you're still yapping so I guess we're not all that good at this authoritarian stuff. We'll leave that to experts like you.I'd certainly disagree with you on protected religion. We've certainly seen enough of exceptions to it. Also the exceptions of differently abled. Tourette's syndrome sufferers as an example. I did like gave the religious "cult" example in your President Trump supporters, negating your earlier claim.
Just admit it, anything you can do to silence any and all political speech and dissent, no matter how fascist your opinion is, is perfectly fine with you and the leftist Authoritarian supporters in this forum.
Just admit it, anything you can do to silence any and all political speech and dissent, no matter how fascist your opinion is, is perfectly fine with you and the leftist Authoritarian supporters in this forum.
Just like how here on AT Forums, if you don't follow rules there are consequences. It does make me wonder why Taj does not make an issue over the forum rules here, but only feels an issue with the rules on Twitter.He's trying to equate blacks not being allowed to eat at lunch counters back in the day to conservatives being banned from twitter today.
He can't tell the difference between racism and "if you don't follow the rules you will get suspended/banned"
Example:To get back on topic: I hope the native population wins and gets this hotel to either undo that policy or shut down. There should be zero tolerance for that.
And yes, Taj needs some basic education on actual free speech rights. Even if Twitter were a public space as Taj defines them (it's not)... public spaces still have rules for behavior. If you spread harmful misinformation (like shouting "fire!") and hate speech in a town hall, you're still going to be kicked out and/or face legal repercussions.
"Letting Facebook, Twitter and others ban content they deem harmful is a triumph of free speech,..."This is a very odd thing to say from a supporter of a party that tolerates (and in some cases, condones) an anti-democratic insurrection based on false claims, and whose most recent President has repeatedly attacked the free press while calling for broader libel laws to help him silence critics.
There's a long-established reason why private companies must be allowed to control what's on their platforms. If the government can force companies to carry content they don't want to host (and isn't required for other reasons), then it would threaten both the free press and any other private enterprise. Imagine if a conservative bookstore was forced to carry copies of The 1619 Project and Obama's memoirs; you'd be livid.
Letting Facebook, Twitter and others ban content they deem harmful is a triumph of free speech, not the end of it.
I know you're both a right-wing authoritarian who believes that illegal immigrants should be murdered, and a useful idiot who doesn't quite understand legal terminology and legal responsibilities of American businesses, so I'll explain this to other people so that others who aren't quite the flaming garbage bag that you are might get some clearer understanding."Letting Facebook, Twitter and others ban content they deem harmful is a triumph of free speech,..."
Says it all for the Authoritarian left. Thank you.
That's rich from you Putin supporters when he jails people for just saying "war""Letting Facebook, Twitter and others ban content they deem harmful is a triumph of free speech,..."
Says it all for the Authoritarian left. Thank you.
Facebook and Twitter are private entities. they are not obligated to host anyone's speech. Free speech only applies to the government."Letting Facebook, Twitter and others ban content they deem harmful is a triumph of free speech,..."
Says it all for the Authoritarian left. Thank you.
I am not and have never been a supporter of the Authoritarian regime in Russia. So go fuck yourself.That's rich from you Putin supporters when he jails people for just saying "war"
I find it hilarious that the far left feel they should be the arbiter of what political speech is allowed and which is forbidden and which platforms it can be banned.Facebook and Twitter are private entities. they are not obligated to host anyone's speech. Free speech only applies to the government.
Or as xkcd summarizes it...
Free Speech
xkcd.com
I wonder why that would be?Just like how here on AT Forums, if you don't follow rules there are consequences. It does make me wonder why Taj does not make an issue over the forum rules here, but only feels an issue with the rules on Twitter.
It's not like conservatives need external assistance in that regard...You guys ever consider maybe taji is a Soros plant to make conservatives look bad?
I never said where it can or can't be. Just that as private entities, you have 0 free speech rights on Facebook and Twitter. And shocker, businesses don't want racist shitposters.I find it hilarious that the far left feel they should be the arbiter of what political speech is allowed and which is forbidden and which platforms it can be banned.
It's fine that you support free speech on all platforms, but Twitter is not a public/govt owned company so they can control what is on their platform.I wonder why that would be?
I just know i support free speech on all platforms.
Bullshit. You were on your knees swallowing in front of your hero while he called Putin a genius and also when he sold out his own country in front of the world.That's rich from you Putin supporters when he jails people for just saying "war"
"Letting Facebook, Twitter and others ban content they deem harmful is a triumph of free speech,..."
Says it all for the Authoritarian left. Thank you.
You keep saying the words "authoritarian left", provide examples of left authoritarian, policies, laws, statements, people....come on bitch-boy this is right up your dimly lit alley, what evidence do you have?? I really want to know what you are referring to when you say those words."Letting Facebook, Twitter and others ban content they deem harmful is a triumph of free speech,..."
Says it all for the Authoritarian left. Thank you.