basically
banned-users
Phi Kappa Chi ΦΚΧ <a:yeah:589703000977571860><a:ppHop:536353159615086612>
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Fucking niggers
*nuggets
Auto correct bad
Guys help I have information that could lead to the arrest of the Clint-
@Rusp id delete that
who hit enter?
hi barbell
poor rusp
he was so young
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv wikipedia purged and nuked the Yaniv article and its history
i love freedom
who is that and why is it important
Canadian Tranny, who is at the center of 3 different scandals right now
oh rob
johnathan yaniv is a pedophile who lives in british columbia. He is currently famous because he is using the BC human rights tribunals (think courts but more homosexual) on over a dozen women because they refused to wax his testicles
he is categorically insane
a less succinct way of saying what spooky said
This of Yaniv as a bellwether, for how bad Canada has gotten
Anyways dolf, I only started posting about this here because I know a few other people started following this. I have been following this for about 8? months
Pika, you're going to lose
you're going to have to wax his balls
it's his right
I would do it
he wants a Brazilian on his testicles
I will take one for the team
Careful what you offer Pika
now that you've made the service available
any of us can sue you
Is it still up
or is that an old picture
Does anyone have the draft for the new FTC/FCC EO?
it was leaked, but i can't find the text
internet media is PISSED, and as far as I can tell aren't referencing the actual text
This would amount to a sort of ‘Animal Farm’-style approach where all speech is freeThis is going to be a site to see, if they're this pissed right now
so freedom of speech not being infringed?
sweet
the remedies of treating Facebook, Google, Twitter and the like as monopolies or common carriers would worsen the problemsweet
Public officials who respect the Constitution should not propose an entire regime to govern the InternetThe damage control is unreal
The only—legitimate and legal—restrictions on speech must flow from private not public actionthat reads as satire
it's not
this is a rebuke to the text of a proposal
that is too terrible to publish
so the media is just telling you it's bad
private companies can restrict speech because they aren't the government, so thats correct at least
From what I can surmise, Trump wants the FTC/FCC to receive power to designate some private speech as public
as it regards to the internet, citing interstate commerce
which protects it from undue censorship
So if they designate non-protested Twitter feeds to be public speech
Twtter would not be able to refuse a persons ability to access said public forum (normal 1A exceptions)
they could likely still limit you in many ways if they wanted, but that will be governed by the FTC/FCC
so the courts deciding Trump can't block people makes Twitter be protected by the 1st ammendment
Trump not being able to block people was a weird case, and as far as I can tell it's because Twitter has designated certain accounts currently to be "public officials"
no he could block people until a judge said he couldn't, twitter didn't do it
no, but that was the argument the judge made
that as a public official, he was burdened differently
Trumps counterpoint was that he has 2 accounts
if it actually ever goes to trial we'd get interesting case law out of it
because there is a function of verifibility which needs to take place
Because I can set up a light switch to send out tweets every time it's turned on/off
and Trump should be fully within his right to block that
but I could either claim it was my speech, indirectly
or I could claim that it was not
no, you should be allowed to set up a bot that responds to every trump tweet with a gif of a man spreading his asshole and trump should have to see it Kappa
Part of the argument was also that these fucks make a living based on their placement in replies to Trump tweets
which they do
which is amusing
by being blocked ,it is a direct monetary setback