Reply With Quote
in your own words if you can.
the Britannica definition doesn't get you to the finish line -- not even halfway, to be honest.
that has nothing to do with this discussion. you get that, right?
in your own words if you can.
the Britannica definition doesn't get you to the finish line -- not even halfway, to be honest.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-...b_5173493.html
With bills in the House and Senate, the lawmakers would direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to “analyze” media outlets — including radio — to determine if they’re working to “advocate and encourage” hate crimes.
Yeah, they really whipped Rush Limbaugh into shape.
He's terrified. You can hear it in his voice every day.
lordy, I hope the Republicans have enough votes to defeat fascism in our time.
do you think they do, Ken?
Probably not...unfortunately the majority of people vote for progressive policies.
can you explain the fascism in your own words, Ken? we still lack a clear picture of what you're attempting to discuss.
And what about Trumps direct threats to companies like Harley-Davidson, Ken?
Is that fascism?
"We" or you? It's an easy concept to follow.
1) Mussolini (fascist) created national boards/committees to regulate the people/corporations.
2) US congress members (on both sides) have called for the creation of national agencies (government agencies) to analyze private media companies and influence what is "hate" speech/fake news or not.
"we don't have a problem with that"
I don't agree with that, and a lot of other stuff he does. If the tariffs are creating opportunities for HD to save money by moving operations overseas, I expect them to do that for their shareholders.
Full disclosure: I own HD motorcycles and HD stock.
so, you're worried about the influence based on the actors?
You didn't answer the question.
Are Trump's threats fascism?
https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologi...lic-forum.htmlLike consumers fidgeting with most emerging technologies, the law often seems confused with how to handle new and even old tech. Recently, questions abound whether a government official can block a citizen from an official communication channel, especially when an official's personal account is used as the official communication channel. The president, and other members of government, are currently finding themselves defending lawsuits over this very issue, likely due to President Trump's extensive use of Twitter.
The Social Media Contract
The internet platforms are by no means traditional public forums. The companies that run social media websites are private and can legally censor and remove publicly, and privately, posted content. They can also ban, suspend, or limit users, for pretty much any reason. Additionally, social media users can narrow their privacy settings to block individuals, and even specific words, from showing up in their media feeds.
But, nevertheless, the very nature of governmental use of social media lends itself to being the most public of public forums. When government officials use social media channels to make official communications, there is a developing line of cases that establish these channels as limited public forums. Essentially when a government en y or official creates a social media channel for official communications, it converts the channel from a private forum, to a limited public forum, which entails not-so-limited First Amendment protections for those who participate in the forum.
Restricting Social Media Speech and Access
A primary cause for concern is that social media can often elicit controversial and emotional discourse, which can quickly devolve into name calling, shaming, meme-ing, and much worse. As such, it makes sense that a government official or department would be able to restrict speech, or even access, to some individuals in the public forum. However, doing so requires careful thought and application of content neutral restrictions in order to not violate the First Amendment.
For example, a cons uent yelling obscenities into the microphone at a public town hall meeting, or on social media, is likely to be removed. However, an unpopular opinion posted on a city government's social media page in response to a new city project cannot be deleted or censored without violating the First Amendment, unless it violates content neutral restrictions. In most cases, of course, this is pretty obvious stuff.
But...it's not fascism until they try to create a federal board to review corporate supply chain structures.
Last edited by clambake; 08-08-2018 at 10:31 AM. Reason: pavlov with the better answer
Meh...call it what you will. I defined it in post #134 above.
Not surprising that the village idiots would cry foul about censorship without understanding how the First Amendment applies to social media platforms. Because the amendment only applies to congress, the only way to object to what Facebook, twitter, etc. do is through the public forum doctrine. There's really not a colorable argument that private companies are public or limited public forums as to private individuals (as noted above, it gets a little more complicated when governmental actors are involved).
I wonder if the resident re s would agree with forcing Breitbart to host an op-ed blog by Rachel Maddow on their website?
proposed legislation that died four years ago is equivalent to de facto fascist regulatory agencies?
that's a bit of a stretch.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2219Length: 3 pages
Introduced:Apr 8, 2014
113th Congress, 2013–2015
Status: Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on April 8, 2014, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.
Where are you getting your definition of "fascism"?
Fascism doesn't happen overnight. Mussolini/Hitler took 20+ years to get their ducks in a row.
Where did you get your definition of "fascism"?
I was asked how banning of speech on social media was considered fascism. The definition is direct response to that and not the definition of fascism in general.
What is your general definition of fascism?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
