Anonymous wrote:Oh lord Jeff. You have the patience of a saint. I hope this thread demonstrates the principle that republicans consistently fail to grasp: freedom under the first amendment means people (who own websites sometimes) get to publish (or not publish) what we they want, for whatever reasons they want, subject to very few limitations. Cry more cons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord Jeff. You have the patience of a saint. I hope this thread demonstrates the principle that republicans consistently fail to grasp: freedom under the first amendment means people (who own websites sometimes) get to publish (or not publish) what we they want, for whatever reasons they want, subject to very few limitations. Cry more cons.

Google and other ad sites determine what Jeff can and can’t leave on the forum.

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord Jeff. You have the patience of a saint. I hope this thread demonstrates the principle that republicans consistently fail to grasp: freedom under the first amendment means people (who own websites sometimes) get to publish (or not publish) what we they want, for whatever reasons they want, subject to very few limitations. Cry more cons.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

+1. Jeff’s MO is to be extremely biased, while claiming factual and moral superiority. He can never be incorrect, and if you post anything that disagrees with him you are subject to deletion. Some of the stuff he deletes is truly bizarre and not always political. For instance, I’ve seen him delete posts that claim that hormonal birth control shrinks ovaries by up to 50%. I was utterly puzzled as to why he would care about that, but he cleaned out a whole thread even deleted posts linking studies on pubmed.

The fact that you are posting a completely off-topic post — what do ovaries and birth control have to do with "The Twitter Files"? — probably sheds some light on why your posts sometimes get deleted.

Regardless, as others are pointing out, I can be as biased as I want to be. That is perfectly within my rights, just as it is within Twitter's rights. Your right is to run your mouth complaining — a right you exercise with some frequency — or leave.

The point is that you have created a forum that for the most part is insightful, outstanding, and of value.
It is entertaining & interesting, and provides value especially the school threads and relationships threads.
I know you will not let it become the bizarre and disgusting Fairfax Underground forum, and kudos for you to moderate for that, but healthy and non-slanted debate adds to overall the credibility. Its a trees forest issue I'm asking you to consider.

My analogy would be the old ridiculous Hannity and Colmes " debate " show where Colmes was the sitting duck because no reasonable argument he could have brought forward was edited and not allowed.
And the show was disingenuously designed that way.
Don't be that guy.

The problem here is that you are addressing a subjective topic: where is the proper line for moderation. The problem with subjective topics is that there is a tendency to believe that anything more or less extreme than your own position is wrong. So, you are perfectly happy with moderation as long as it meets your preferences for moderation. Less moderation would be bizarre and disgusting. More moderation is disingenuous. Life would be perfect if I precisely adhered to your preferences. However, other posters have different preferences. Many of them likely think your preferences are bizarre and disgusting while others think they are disingenuous. Obviously, it's impossible to please everyone. I don't actually follow my own preferences, but rather what I feel is desired by our community at large, as best as that can be determined. Continually disrupting other threads because I don't behave as you would wish is not the solution for you.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

+1. Jeff’s MO is to be extremely biased, while claiming factual and moral superiority. He can never be incorrect, and if you post anything that disagrees with him you are subject to deletion. Some of the stuff he deletes is truly bizarre and not always political. For instance, I’ve seen him delete posts that claim that hormonal birth control shrinks ovaries by up to 50%. I was utterly puzzled as to why he would care about that, but he cleaned out a whole thread even deleted posts linking studies on pubmed.

The fact that you are posting a completely off-topic post — what do ovaries and birth control have to do with "The Twitter Files"? — probably sheds some light on why your posts sometimes get deleted.

Regardless, as others are pointing out, I can be as biased as I want to be. That is perfectly within my rights, just as it is within Twitter's rights. Your right is to run your mouth complaining — a right you exercise with some frequency — or leave.

The point is that you have created a forum that for the most part is insightful, outstanding, and of value.
It is entertaining & interesting, and provides value especially the school threads and relationships threads.
I know you will not let it become the bizarre and disgusting Fairfax Underground forum, and kudos for you to moderate for that, but healthy and non-slanted debate adds to overall the credibility. Its a trees forest issue I'm asking you to consider.

My analogy would be the old ridiculous Hannity and Colmes " debate " show where Colmes was the sitting duck because no reasonable argument he could have brought forward was edited and not allowed.
And the show was disingenuously designed that way.
Don't be that guy.

The problem here is that you are addressing a subjective topic: where is the proper line for moderation. The problem with subjective topics is that there is a tendency to believe that anything more or less extreme than your own position is wrong. So, you are perfectly happy with moderation as long as it meets your preferences for moderation. Less moderation would be bizarre and disgusting. More moderation is disingenuous. Life would be perfect if I precisely adhered to your preferences. However, other posters have different preferences. Many of them likely think your preferences are bizarre and disgusting while others think they are disingenuous. Obviously, it's impossible to please everyone. I don't actually follow my own preferences, but rather what I feel is desired by our community at large, as best as that can be determined. Continually disrupting other threads because I don't behave as you would wish is not the solution for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

It is his website, if you don't like how he moderates it, you can choose not to visit anymore. No one is forcing you to come here, and further, there are plenty of right wing cesspool websites you can visit, anytime you want.

Then you admit this is a left wing nut cesspool?

Never change, Republicans, never change.

(Just kidding. The country and world would be far better places if you collectively developed any of the values you profess to uphold).

The purpose of my response was to point out the always us/ them diatribe.
The world is grey and there is good/ bad/ &'hypocrisy on both DNC & RNC sides.
Two sides of same coin in a lot of cases.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

+1. Jeff’s MO is to be extremely biased, while claiming factual and moral superiority. He can never be incorrect, and if you post anything that disagrees with him you are subject to deletion. Some of the stuff he deletes is truly bizarre and not always political. For instance, I’ve seen him delete posts that claim that hormonal birth control shrinks ovaries by up to 50%. I was utterly puzzled as to why he would care about that, but he cleaned out a whole thread even deleted posts linking studies on pubmed.

The fact that you are posting a completely off-topic post — what do ovaries and birth control have to do with "The Twitter Files"? — probably sheds some light on why your posts sometimes get deleted.

Regardless, as others are pointing out, I can be as biased as I want to be. That is perfectly within my rights, just as it is within Twitter's rights. Your right is to run your mouth complaining — a right you exercise with some frequency — or leave.

The point is that you have created a forum that for the most part is insightful, outstanding, and of value.
It is entertaining & interesting, and provides value especially the school threads and relationships threads.
I know you will not let it become the bizarre and disgusting Fairfax Underground forum, and kudos for you to moderate for that, but healthy and non-slanted debate adds to overall the credibility. Its a trees forest issue I'm asking you to consider.

My analogy would be the old ridiculous Hannity and Colmes " debate " show where Colmes was the sitting duck because no reasonable argument he could have brought forward was edited and not allowed.
And the show was disingenuously designed that way.
Don't be that guy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

It is his website, if you don't like how he moderates it, you can choose not to visit anymore. No one is forcing you to come here, and further, there are plenty of right wing cesspool websites you can visit, anytime you want.

Then you admit this is a left wing nut cesspool?

Never change, Republicans, never change.

(Just kidding. The country and world would be far better places if you collectively developed any of the values you profess to uphold).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

It is his website, if you don't like how he moderates it, you can choose not to visit anymore. No one is forcing you to come here, and further, there are plenty of right wing cesspool websites you can visit, anytime you want.

Then you admit this is a left wing nut cesspool?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

It is his website, if you don't like how he moderates it, you can choose not to visit anymore. No one is forcing you to come here, and further, there are plenty of right wing cesspool websites you can visit, anytime you want.

Then you admit this is a left wing nut cesspool?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

It is his website, if you don't like how he moderates it, you can choose not to visit anymore. No one is forcing you to come here, and further, there are plenty of right wing cesspool websites you can visit, anytime you want.

Then you admit this is a left wing nut cesspool?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

+1. Jeff’s MO is to be extremely biased, while claiming factual and moral superiority. He can never be incorrect, and if you post anything that disagrees with him you are subject to deletion. Some of the stuff he deletes is truly bizarre and not always political. For instance, I’ve seen him delete posts that claim that hormonal birth control shrinks ovaries by up to 50%. I was utterly puzzled as to why he would care about that, but he cleaned out a whole thread even deleted posts linking studies on pubmed.

The fact that you are posting a completely off-topic post — what do ovaries and birth control have to do with "The Twitter Files"? — probably sheds some light on why your posts sometimes get deleted.

Regardless, as others are pointing out, I can be as biased as I want to be. That is perfectly within my rights, just as it is within Twitter's rights. Your right is to run your mouth complaining — a right you exercise with some frequency — or leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

Let me help a bit:

“ "Since filing our lawsuit, we've uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive 'censorship enterprise,'" Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. "Now, we're deposing top government officials, and we're one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we've uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It's clear from Tuesday's deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech."

Let's see how well this lawsuit does in the court system. I would not put a lot of faith in the plaintiff's attorney. But, let me give a real life example of the type of thing being described here.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by an individual who asked me to remove a thread on DCUM. The individual said that the thread involved an issue in which the police were involved and that the police had warned them that the DCUM thread could put people in danger. I said that I wanted to hear that from the police directly and was subsequently contacted by a police officer. The officer confirmed that it was their opinion that the thread could in fact present a threat to the safety of those involved. I was still reluctant to remove the thread and explained my position and the officer left it at that. I followed up with the original person who contacted me and we agreed upon a solution that did not involve removing the entire thread, but did require removing two or three specific posts.

In this case, I was clearly influenced by a governmental actor to censor a DCUM thread. It was within my rights to ignore the police. I later chose to remove posts but did so due to my own determinations about the appropriateness of the posts rather than by governmental order. As such, there was no First Amendment issue involved here. I suspect that you will find out that the same is true in the legal procedure you are referencing.

Thank you for admitting you choose what gets posted. Unfortunately you have become rather heavy handed with your censorship and it has lowered the quality of conversation on the forum. I posted something the other day and thought my post was thoughtful and respectful but it did argue the opposing view of establishment Democrats. It was removed. Now it seems like if a post doesn’t tow your personal line it gets deleted. I guess maybe you should just get rid of the political forum altogether because it is so heavily edited.

It is his website, if you don't like how he moderates it, you can choose not to visit anymore. No one is forcing you to come here, and further, there are plenty of right wing cesspool websites you can visit, anytime you want.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

No it isn’t.

Yes it is The FIB and government intelligence officials are (wait for it) government agencies.

Where in the constitution does it say that employees of private businesses can’t meet with government officials?

First paragraph:

“or abridge the freedom of speech”

When government officials tell twitter to ban a user or delete a post because they don’t like what’s said.

That does not say that meetings are prohibited.

You also left out the part about "Congress shall make no law". Can you point me to the law that you believes violates the 1st Amendment in this case?

Enjoy the read. No matter how you spin in or try to parse it, you are incorrect.

The ‘no law’ clause has nothing to do with this. Congress didn’t try to make a law. They bypassed any judicial review as well.

https://www.fox-news.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies

"The Constitution doesn't matter" must be the new MAGA slogan. If you are going to claim that the 1st Amendment was violated, then what the 1st Amendment says absolutely matters. The 1st Amendment prohibits laws abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't prohibit meetings.