The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Monday 21 January 2019

Covington Facecrime


The Left now thinks its OK to call for your kids to be physically assaulted, set on fire, their school shot up or burned down. All these are things that have been suggested should happen on Twitter to the boys from the Covington school. And we have visible proof that Twitter AGREES. The call for there to be a school shooting at Covington was reported to Twitter, and twitter found it did not violate their rules for hate speech.

I'll note that when I once pointed out the STATISTICALLY TRUE prevalence of Sunni Muslims in worldwide terrorism, that was something they decided violated their rules.

But calling for a child to be set on fire and shot for wearing a MAGA hat and for not looking submissive when a professional fraudster/protester walked up to HIM, and got in HIS face with a whole group of other aggressive leftist protesters (in an age where leftist protesters are known for being able to break out into violence for no reason whatsoever)? That, to Twitter is completely acceptable.




There's talk of suing the media companies like CNN for spreading the vicious LIES and slander against these kids, and I hope that happens. But I hope someone also makes sure to hold Twitter LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE. Because Twitter is in clear violation of US law in terms of its responsibility to be a neutral content provider if it wants to be immune to legal consequences for things people post on their site.

Twitter bans people on the right for literally nothing.
But it cheers and retweets and gives special Blue Checkmarks to people calling for insane levels of violence, even against children, so long as the people doing the tweeting are on the Left and the children in question are those horrible white male children of the right.

There's no question where all of this is headed. If you're anyone but a hardcore leftist (and even if you are, but fall into the wrong demographic), if they get their way you are going to end up in a gulag.

We need to stop trying to call for some lenient means of appeasement with the left. We've tried them all. There's no negotiating with a terrorist and no calming a rabid dog. Unless they are stripped of every last means of control they have, and unless their leaders in politics, the media and industry are made accountable for their actions, this will all end in killing fields and then the fall of the West.

Rule of law needs to be restored and be credible, and nothing destroys that like the idea that there's different rules for one side than the other. One side is guilty if they don't make the right face, the other side isn't guilty even if they beat you to death with a bike-lock.

How much longer does anyone think the Right will keep just "taking the punch", when every time they do they get blamed and punished for being there to be punched anyways, while the people actually throwing the punches get away with it, over and over again?

If that distinction isn't rectified by government and the establishment in both the public square and the Virtual Public Square that is social media, then all confidence in the justice and fairness of the rule of law will be dead, and people will need to take matters into their own hands.

RPGPundit

Currently Smoking: Neerup Poker + Barking Dog




10 comments:

  1. I cannot understand how anyone can be so accepting of such unbridled intolerance and hate. All because of indentity politics. Indefensible. Absolutely hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Twitter is not in violation of US law. There is no obligation for a private entity to be a neutral content provider. There are FCC rules that regulate that for television and radio (although those are unenforced now at best, and largely rescinded 20 years ago). The FCC does not regulate anything on the Internet, and US law does not regulate internet-based platforms for content.

    I have no dog in this fight, but if you're going to talk about a country's laws, especially one you don't live in, try to make sure you're right: especially in the context of yelling about lying. I agree with you it's an abdication of their self-described duty to remain neutral, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does exactly that. Twitter cannot be liable for indecent material so long as they are not acting as a "publisher" of 3rd party postings but as a neutral 'content provider'. But as soon as they themselves are engaging in directed moderation, prohibiting certain speech and allowing other, they are acting as a publisher and are liable.

      Maybe you need to brush up on your country's laws?

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are making things as usual again, Pundit.

    First you blame the left for everything but you cannot prove its all liberals. You aren't Trump. You can't tell a lie and not get called out for it.

    Secondly social media companies do not need to be neutral. You use their services for free and you agree to their rules when you sign up. If you don't follow the rules you get kicked off.

    You should know that by now considering the number of sites you have been kicked off of because you can't behave like an adult.

    Third there is no law that says social media sites have to be neutral. Net neutrality covered that but was repealed last year april.

    Know what you are talking about before you speak. You will embarrass yourself less that way by talking about laws you don't understand and laws that don't apply to you because you are a Canadian living in a third world country


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You imbecile. Net Neutrality had NOTHING to do with social media sites being neutral. It had nothing to do with social media sites at all! It was about ISPs.

      However, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does exactly that. Twitter cannot be liable for indecent material so long as they are not acting as a "publisher" of 3rd party postings but as a neutral 'content provider'. But as soon as they themselves are engaging in directed moderation, prohibiting certain speech and allowing other, they are acting as a publisher and are liable.

      The only one embarrassing himself by not knowing what he's talking about is you, as usual.

      Delete
  5. Curious how the Leftists avoid the discussion about the treatment of these kids and instead go to defend the method of abuse.

    http://www.allgov.com/departments/independent-agencies/federal-communications-commission-fcc?agencyid=7325

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Why point to an outside article when you great examples of it in this thread. For those who chimed in about how Twitter has no requirement to be neutral how about you the comment on violence directed at a child in clear violation of Twitters own rules and the fact no action has been taken by Twitter against the tweeters . I doubt you will because you either fully support the tweets or have posted very similar tweets yourselves.

      Delete
  6. There are too many laws in this country for Twitter not to be in hot water over this issue. Seems like discriminatory practices to me, and they're complicit in a call to violence (which is not protected under the 1st ammendment) against white, male, Catholic youths.

    So, before playing armchair attorney, maybe take a minute to look at the controversy from a logical perspective.

    ReplyDelete