Supreme Court agrees to hear case that could determine whether Facebook/Twitter can censor users

Free speech is monstrously overrated, however corporations shouldn't have the right to choke out opinions since they're using public airways. It should be considered a public space, allowing anything that isn't illegal (cp, inciting a riot, etc). Even newspapers and TV should return to a variant of the Fairness Doctrine: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Attached: DD4E7260-B345-4B41-9829-4CAC710CEF9B.jpeg (750x1000, 84.38K)

How so?

Attached: brett-kavanaugh2326.jpg (800x420, 135.66K)

this made me get a laugh in. thanks

Just look at his file name and that'll tell you everything.

software engineer here. you know how i know AppaGoogaFaceSoftZon are full of shit and are secretly Totalitarian 1984 Thought Police
with all of their lies and passive aggressive weasel words about claiming censoring Conservative views is only about reducing harassment and bullying and boosting the so-called "quality" of online conversations? because these Silicon Valley monopolists could have given users a fool-proof solution that would have worked for all sides, without needing to censor anybody and bring the SCOTUS hammer cracking down
on them. AppaGoogaFaceSoftZon should have given the free choice to users to decide for themselves whether they want to see Nazis and cartoon frogs online. just show users a settings popup, like the new annoying "accept our cookies ok" buttons on every fucking site (thx Euro cucks). just show a few checkboxes like "yes, i want to see Hitler memes" and "no, don't show me any blue haired soyface grimacing wife's boyfriend's cuck NPCs." the tech monopolists wouldn't even have to change any of their backend code which classifies content into topical buckets. they would just need to open up that feature and expose it to the user. but that is exactly why the AppaGoogaFaceSoftZon faggots won't do that. they don't want you the Luser to have control over your own Internet experience. they don't want you Sheeple masses to decide for yourself what Content you will consume. and worst of all, these kiked up censors can't stand the idea that someone somewhere online is "wrong" and is saying "Hitler did nothing wrong." Out of sight, out of mind is not enough to pacify the Shitlibs. even if they don't see Pepe memes, if they think someone somewhere on the Internet is seeign them, then those people need to be punished and have their free speech taken away.

Attached: matrix_no_mouth.gif (220x135, 359.95K)

based copy saved for later pasta

...

This is a pretty redpilled post.

Because in a national socialist state, everything is done in function to improve your nation, to improve your race. (((Individualism))) of which free speech is rooted in, can be a cancer that grows on a nation. Debate over the way the nation is going is healthy and appreciated, third positionists believe there is a universal truth… however man hasn't gotten there yet so policies need to be altered, substituted or eliminated regularly.

That speech is ultimately in the best interest of the racial-state.

Attached: 1137030-A-N-Wilson-Quote-I-think-one-of-the-very-frightening-things-about.jpg (1600x900, 86.89K)

Sounds horrifically stifling.

Only a weak ideology desires censorship.

It's like safeguarding a child.

Wow I am very glad that members of their mafia are going to be in charge of punishing them . I am sure lots of these unbiased mafia members in the supreme Court are going to go against their masters because Scalia was definitely the only justice they were going to murder.

The entire Earth is a prison maintained by carefully selected chess moves by psychopaths from various mafias. Chinks, KIKES, Freemasons, Saudi princes, British pedos, Hollywood pedos, DC pedos, companies on the fake stock market that is designed to generate human suffering , and any of the monopolies who somehow have unlimited room to operate while anyone even slightly deviating from the status quo can't move one inch.

I hope Kavanaugh becomes the 1 vote difference.

Go back to >>>/liberty/, natsoc allows criticism of government but speech should exist in function to your race-state.

Attached: DeL8Xw1W4AAjBIk.jpg (1200x720, 154.88K)

Yeah that obvious theater that was just one of thousands of episodes of DISTRACT THE GOLEMS WITH GOSSIP was so fucking real. That member of the establishment who helped design the Patriot act is such a based neo con.

fuck off, retard. you have no idea how the internet works. government has no right to tell to tell anybody what they can do with their own fucking servers in terms of free speech. I run several servers, users think rules don't matter, so they get banned. government want info on someone? they get 100% ignored.
you signed up & agreed to the terms and conditions of using such services. as admins, we can do whatever the fuck we like and nobody can do anything about it except cry. I'm glad my setups are in countries that do not suck on US cock. in relation to the sites i run, my rights are more important than users wasting my bandwidth that i'm paying for. sites like twitter, facebook etc, no fucking matter how public they are, are free to do whatever the fuck they want.

world has gone full fucking retard.

Based and whitepilled

We've had this discuession many times before. It is typically divided along the lines of, free speech is good, but degenerate anti-national speech is forbidden (pornography, glorifications of communism, etc.) or full free speech.

One side arguing that certain things should not be allowed, and we should instituter book burnings and the other side stating that such examples of degeneracy, while not to be cherished, must not be purged from memory lest we forget why we fought and slip into the same trap once more.

This is all academic though, with scrutiny one can discern the good from the bad and simply choose otherwise and without (((lobbies))) to prop up the degenerate anti-NS ideals they will naturally fall into disuse and bankruptcy with people consciously choose to boycott filth, however in practice there is too much content to reliably do this, and to even attempt such a thing not only triggers red flags in many but also runs headlong into the problem of pic 2 related.

Attached: 1397274808247.jpg (194x255 243.37 KB, 24.54K)

That's a really kikey post, holy fucking shit.

Good news, you only seem to be half retarded. We've been dealing with these laws and the entire "reinterpretation" of the constitution for a century. Might as well let it work in our favor when given the chance. Privately owned malls are public spaces and can't censor based on speech. Same goes for twitter.

Can't wait to see whos Reich and who is the true kikes.

kill yourself, faggot. if you want freedom of speech, start your own websites that can't be governed, you STUPID FUCKING KIKE.

ITT: fucking morons that have no idea how to run their own censorship proof websites

utterly fucking pathetic kikes. your jew tears are delicious.

Nice Hitler dubs. Honestly, if all we do is remove Jews from any position of influence (and the nation entirely) this solves most problems immediately.

Pic 2 is basically a bluepilled faggot talking, a liberal scared of a strong leader, and a Freemason at that. Nothing he said is a problem if you know anything beyond boilerplate "Americanism" which has not only completely failed, but failed over a century ago. It really doesn't represent another legitimate side to things, just Higher Men vs Last Men Who Don't Know Shit.

It's almost like you don't analyze ideas for themselves and only the authority who speaks such ideas. Oh dear.

Attached: 955d08b392aab1e01eb41c9e8f7ce8bec3471d47b56fb4f870b1498c01af3157.jpg (474x2500, 169.99K)

My only problem with this free speech applying to social media is what is considered social media. This board is social media. People talk with each other and share media. If we weren't allowed to ban Zig Forums it would completely ruin the board. From this I want sites with a niche to be excluded. Sites like facebook and twitter do not really have a niche, you can talk about just about anything on the platform. This is the way they are advertised to users at least. It includes no rules about not being able to post right wing views it just bans you anyways. Some other things to consider would be only affecting public companies, or web sites above a certain threshold of users.

You don't know what that means and you're posting an NPC meme in a highly ironic way. Good job announcing you're not a National Socialist and that you're from cuckchan because on this board the free speech discussion was over years ago before you transplants came in.

I know, but at least enjoy the circus… you never know when you'll die on a false flag, like those NPCs on 911

You better sit down.

You attack the person not the logic of the quote. You imply things that where clearly not true in an attempt to make yourself look like the ingroup.

I'm posting it reference to you as you are clearly the outsider here, not respecting information for what it is but only who says it, and then speaking untruths about the person who said it like a typical NPC attacking the strawman and not the meat of the argument.

Projection, once more, can't expect much from these folk eh?

Only from before the exodus like all oldfags are.

Attached: 1460856761547-0.png (994x1042 60.07 KB, 293.9K)

I attacked both you idiot. You literally held up a French Freemason as the other side of your argument, who would have whined about an autodidact who was superior to him on every front telling him what to do if he were in NatSoc Germany. Not to mention he was an economist, all of whom again got blown the fuck out by NatSoc Germany and have always been barking up the wrong tree (materialism). Who he is was relevant to what his "points" were, just like a jew would be dismissed before you'd even read half the pilpul. Maybe if you had read farther than 5 words into my post, or perhaps even actually read your pic 2 that you reposted without knowing who the guy was, you could see the errors of your ways instead of trying to strawman me like the NPC you are.

THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR IS THAT FACEBOOK, TWITTER, ETC ARE PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES

4CHAN, Zig Forums, ETC ARE NOT

I don't know how much more obvious it can be - these "companies" are basically just the New Government.

Attached: 1460794795159.png (446x373, 80.46K)

A solution to this problem is easy. Once a platform has a regular audience monthly, after for a 12 month period or so, theyll be considered a public space. Then boom, you cant censor folks. Of course you could also pull from the angle that services like facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. Monetize and profit off of promoting business and advertisement. So maybe theres a more corporate model to structure how and what constitutes a social media entity that has to fall under some law that wont allow them to have bias or censorship of an individuals page or profile on their website or app. Anyone should be allowed to hear or say whatever they like, social networks arent forced to bring those voices to you but they shouldnt go out of their way to filter them to the lowest denominator of the population. The amount of mindless viewing is disgusting not to mention the new problem of NPCs being a thing, if folks really arent thinking all that much then what affects the cultural shift becomes much more important.

Big businesses in America are almost universally aligned to the destruction of the white American nation, and as such, should be treated as enemies at best, traitors at worst. They should be extremely thankful that all that's happening is they might have to allow non-cucked speech on their platforms.

The moment you start having a significant impact on white society's public discourse is the moment you must be forced to follow the first amendment.

Good thing we just got corporate stooges Gorcuck and O'Kavanaugh, to tell us that tech monopolies are private companies and can do whatever they want.

Fuck off, kike. They traded protections against lawsuits for that right. The only thing you know about law is what you believe is right, it is based purely in fiction. They're about to lose that right as the trade-off was tyrannical. Kill yourself to save us wrecking the environment with all that burned powder.

You seem to not understand (((who))) runs (((big business))).
They should be treated like thieving, treacherous kikes at best, and a plague to be eradicated at worst.
All major businesses need a good beheading and butchering, because those (((business leaders))) have betrayed the nation for the unholy dollar all while training their successors to be worse than themselves.
You know business is fucked when robber barons are viewed as angelic when compared to their contemporaries.

Which will never happen if they continue to control public discourse and are allowed to do so out of a jewish belief in "sanctity of muh free market", you idiot.

You either stumbled into that word or are a legit old timer. Does a hose have the unix nature?

eh honestly we're not doing this for Free Speech but rather so we can rattle the cage without the kikes stopping us

sure not publically but they are traded privately

The Fairness Doctrine is horseshit, though. All that it dictated was they be required to provide opposing viewpoints; it does nothing to address the issue at root here: ethics.

These fucks don't have an honest, ethical fiber in their entire being. The Fairness Doctrine would be better named the Controlled Opposition Doctrine for all it says. What we need is a law requiring honest and ethical business practices, a renewed ban on propaganda daily reminder that the use of propaganda was legalized in 2012, and watchdog organizations to ensure media companies are not lying to their viewers, staffed by people who can do the job properly.

Was shit.
The argument should be thusly: Society is becoming more digitized, and thus free speech in the public square must take on a digitized contextual acknowledgement ala expansion of protections in real-space public squares to digital-space public squares.

You can't simply have a corporation coming in, creating a digital space which becomes the modern equivalent to the public square, and then saying that its a private holding's creation thus bereft of free speech requirements.

It relies upon the inherently false notion that truth always wins out while ignoring the reality that the majority of the population can be easily-swayed by pleasant-sounding lies, for one.
For two, as a consequence of 1, it is widely-abused by subversive oft-jewish factions to spread degenerative ideology such as, just as an example, marxist critical theory.

IOW: Regardless of how you look at it, free speech ensures that both the 'good' speech and the 'bad' speech will be protected, but that by no means suggests the 'good' will be the most popular (regardless of truth), nor that the 'bad' will be rejected (regardless of falsehood), as the majority of the human population is not especially bright and are easily led astray by someone with charisma and/or high verbal IQ.

Not really.
If you want to express speech which is ultimately not in the best interest of the racial-state, you might think so - but if that's the case, why would anyone decent care what you think?

If my choices are "free speech maaaan! that tranny communist jew has to be allowed their speech, even if its subversive marxism fed to gullible masses!" or "tranny communists jews are garbage and marxism is cancer, shut the fuck up or we'll shut you the fuck up", I'll take the latter 100% of the time.
The fear is, of course, that it will eventually be subverted and directed in a harmful manner, but given the harm free speech entails in its own right, I don't see how thats much of an argument.

Oh what a fucking faggot. You know he only did this to spite muhh evil drumpf, i hope this shit comes back around and bites him in the dick.

The idea is that you dont have to structure your laws to prohibit speech because it should be that, naturally, the people in your free nation share your values and traits inherently. You dont need to say "shut up or well shut you up" because there is no voice that disagrees, and theres nothing to disagree with because the state and everyone in it are living as close to the truth as possible, so what would there be to disagree with? If the countrymen act as proper gatekeepers then the souls entering their soils will be molded into fine young men and women, who are perfectly responsible to govern themselves because theyre blessed by the efforts of their ancestors. Isnt that what America was in the 17th century? A nation of people so similar they didnt need the micro governance that was going on then and unfortunately now. A nation of people so similar and so tough that the stock of their youth held the wealth of the world in their hands at the late 18th/early 19th century? But now, I can see where your standards and viewpoints are valid. It almost seems like the only way to bring those kinds of people back are with the harsh order of law, an iron fist etc. Which is essentially whats been going on in the left leaning institutions considering the censorship and bias they distributed. They favor and nurture their herd, just in a false way that isnt beneficial to Caucasians. Which if not America, what nation on earth is a place to put caucasians first? Seems like theres no where in the world for white people to have sovereignty over or theyre racists. Which further validates your call for speech restriction, Im almost convinced myself in this post responding to yours. But I stand with what I started with, the idea is we dont need to do that when were all hunky-dory. The question is how the fuck do we get everyone hunky-dory again?

Of course it will. It always does.

This. If every other business is forced to serve people they don't want to serve, then so should these assholes. The minute a business owner can legally refuse service to a nigger or fag because they are a nigger or fag, is the minute social media companies can censor and ban their choice of speech content. Either everyone has this right, or no one has it. No half measures.

Why should any of these social media sites, be forced to host what one group wants to say if it goes against the company policy? Im not defending any of these places as their thoroughly jewed but i dont see how thats proper. If you have something to say and facebook wont allow it, say it somewhere else. Why should a government step in and begin to demand you take a no censorship stance? If i hosted facebook and didnt want leftists posting their shit id make it a policy in my ToS and ban on site. How is it fair to then have them DEMAND i allow their shit views or ill face government bullshit?

It'll be enjoyable to watch these people squirm as their self made nazi starts making judgements against them

Attached: 0d6dcf48770a354c39c2f47631990d3381296bb87b6e7611368afa8561c4e51a.jpg (1000x1000, 60.5K)

I feel like this post needs an NPC meme. The moment people are "hunky-dory" on anything, they move on to the next thing to bitch and whine over….the very concept of having everyone agree is the reason that people would propose such prohibitions of free speech. your agreement or disagreement depends on the faction to which you reside when the true issue belongs to how the common populace recieves information and how many different sides of view they are allowed to pursue. even if someone is a fucking retard, I gotta have the choice to either sit patiently and hold their hand, or say "fuckdayshii I don't give a fuck"

Back to 4chan, faggot.

Attached: setsubun.png (790x560, 529.83K)

nu.. you obviously didn't read the fucking message I replied, to, but that's that's cool. I liked the programmed response. sounded almost genuine. here, let me try one. get off your iphone, pedo.

Attached: 1471957468014.gif (147x162, 501.09K)

Thread theme

Attached: Everybody Knows Sht's Fcked Obama Edition.mp4 (1280x720, 2.76M)

The SCOTUS will vote 9-0 that Marsh vs. Alabama is illegitimate and that social media website can censor anything they want.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Screencap this. Jewish power will not be taken down with a fucking vote BY JEWS AND SHABBOS GOYIM.

You want the kike consortium to rule over your life because you think otherwise you'll get in trouble for banning someone for being mean to you on your Rust server.

NPC plz go and stay go

Attached: c237y3bc97.jpg (654x571 165.36 KB, 667.82K)

Corporations have been treading on the people for centuries with government approval. That's not going to change.

Attached: at least it's not the gov.jpg (640x427, 29.56K)

Because it was ruled that if you control enough of a public arena, you are a de facto public space and the 1st amendment applies to you.

Sorry, forget the name of the case.

Wont be 9-0 but it could happen. We will see.

Dumb question, will kavanaugh will be on the bench this court case?
I know it seems like a captain obvious yes, but the scotus court term has already started at the beginning of october. What this means at least for those cases there's only 8 judges on them. Not normally an issue for most cases but when you need a tie breaker it is. Like the affirmative action case back in 2016 because Scalia was assassinated dead. I know the dem's goal was a hail mary to stop a scotus nomination, but stopping the newly appointed judge on a case like this is a sliver lining for them.

Attached: worried.png (184x172, 945)

Who?

The newly appointed supreme court judge.

Attached: 1422737524435.jpg (796x556, 78.26K)

He should be. Hearings haven't begun yet.

Check out OC pics related at for an example of the censorship at youtube. Their systems are horrifyingly rapid and automated.

And no one will ever do anything about this.

Are you sure about that?
aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
Any sane White Man knows that he no longer has the right to choose whom he freely associates with while conducting any sort of business, and any attempt to do so will be met with kike lawyers backed by the ACLJew, in turn backed by the kike media, all backed by kike banks.

This user precisely described how (((they))) took the letter of the doctrine of "free speech" and used it to destroy American culture. Pornography, sodomite acceptance, removal of Christian expressions, promotion of alien religions, etc.

Even the idea of "free speech" is inherently anti-culture, because it promotes a heterogeneous environment of ideas. Society works best with a cohesive culture, which necessarily suppresses radical dissent, not only through interactive means such as bullying etc. but eventually through the force of law, which is itself nothing more than a codified lowest-common-denominator of cultural mores.

In actual practice, the USA has never had "free speech" and this is a feature, not a bug. Anybody saying what the average SJW says today, but saying it 50 years ago, would have been suppressed, probably violently, and definitely deplatformed and made unemployable. Just as anybody saying today what was common opinion 50 years ago will be.

While the founding fathers of America did some good work, they made a lot of mistakes, usually by applying implicit context in their writings, context which is lost today, and often by adding their own biases. It's not a coincidence that the first amendment reads as it does, when you remember that several of them were newspapermen, and at least one of them was a lawyer who had been working to defend the rights of religious weirdos such as Catholics and Quakers to hold public office.