Hard to stomach this by Pop

[emmo]

Cons utionally protected Free speech rights only apply to the public square.People forget that Kap and all the other kneelers have zero right to take a knee during the playing of the National Anthem. It's a private workplace with rules in place by the employer (NFL) that require they stand and respect the flag. The problem with this CK crapshow is the NFL chose not to enforce their own rules so then everybody started doing it. I blame the NFL for allowing it to get out of control by not punishing or fining anyone. They just needed to strictly enforce their own rules and it would've ended that kneeling BS immediately.

If CK and the rest of the kneelers want to kneel or protest for "social justice" they can do it on their own time. Go write a blog, have your own podcast, radio show, or even go and shout your BS while at the side of the street. Go for it all you want - that's where you're free speech is practiced. Any employer or private property owner has the right to limit your free speech and the NFL messed up by allowing it to get out of control.

I challenge any of the kneelers or protesters to go to the funeral of military veteran and take a knee while the anthem is played. If anyone of them would do that they're the most disgusting and gross human beings alive. It's really no different taking a knee while the anthem is played at a football game or at a military funeral.

Sorry to disappoint all you woke Anti-American leftists, CK and all the other kneelers are not patriotic. They're disgusting and deserve all the criticism coming to them. Just my opinion.

Clue. They don’t care about criticism. They’re not doing it for anyone’s approval. They’re doing it to start a conversation about a problem and they’ve succeeded.

[Birn]

This is actually not true. ie: Trump daily twitter diarrhea doesn't happen in a public square, yet, his blocking of followers would be a 1st Amendment violation. Twitter is a private company, and can shut up anybody whenever they want, but when it's a government official doing it, then you get the 1st Amendment implication.

Note that I don't disagree that it was in the NFLs authority to do something about it, should they wanted to do so. But wanted to correct that point, as it was misleading.

No, that is completely incorrect. Trump or anyone else can block followers on any social media platform from their individual accounts. It doesn't matter if you're the President or a nobody like EL Nono. The reason is because you aren't preventing anyone from saying what's on their minds. You just don't want to hear their BS. No 1st amendment violations there at all. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right for any individual to have to listen to you. Even if that individual is the President.

The problem with social media and Big Search companies is they enjoy complete immunity from legal liability because they claim to only be a "neutral platform" to facilitate communications between citizens. The fact is they block users and manipulate search results to control the narrative on many issues important to our society. They need to have their exemptions removed immediately. They should be held to account for allowing so much hate and violence to be promoted on their platforms. They need to be held to account for their actions or lack of action.

[Birn]

Clue. They don’t care about criticism. They’re not doing it for anyone’s approval. They’re doing it to start a conversation about a problem and they’ve succeeded.

They succeeded? How so? Blacks are still killing each other in Chicago and Baltimore at alarmingly high rates every week. Highest murder rates in the history of our nation. It's an absolute travesty. How are you defining success? If you're defining it by attention and "starting a conversation", then you have extremely low standards which is typical for unintelligent anti-American leftists. You should be demanding results not attention and "conversation". that!!

[ZeusWillJudge]

LOL are you afraid of the blacks?
And as mentioned, there were all for anthem rules before the black man scared you.

It got your attention, didn't it Mr. fascist racist anti-American snowflake?

So you think Soros is behind it all, right?

LOL. Straw man, ad hominem, strawman, non sequitur, etc. All your usual bag of tricks.

Fortunately for you, you're arguing with someone who, if he doubled his IQ, would be a halfwit. (Which is the real reason I believe you come here - to pick on the handicapped.)

This is actually not true. ie: Trump daily twitter diarrhea doesn't happen in a public square, yet, his blocking of followers would be a 1st Amendment violation.

Curious that you accept the fact that Twitter has a "block" feature, but disapprove of a particular person using it. Not only disapprove, but believe that it becomes illegal. Do any other politicians block people on Twitter? (I can save you some time and tell you that they do.)


It's no wonder the world becomes more dysfunctional every day.

[ElNono]

No, that is completely incorrect. Trump or anyone else can block followers on any social media platform from their individual accounts. It doesn't matter if you're the President or a nobody like EL Nono. The reason is because you aren't preventing anyone from saying what's on their minds. You just don't want to hear their BS. No 1st amendment violations there at all. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right for any individual to have to listen to you. Even if that individual is the President.

The problem with social media and Big Search companies is they enjoy complete immunity from legal liability because they claim to only be a "neutral platform" to facilitate communications between citizens. The fact is they block users and manipulate search results to control the narrative on many issues important to our society. They need to have their exemptions removed immediately. They should be held to account for allowing so much hate and violence to be promoted on their platforms. They need to be held to account for their actions or lack of action.

Yeah, no. Feel free to argue with the courts. See:

https://int.nyt.com/data/do enthel...mized/full.pdf

or

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/172002.P.pdf

It's really nothing new either, it's akin to censorship, which is a 1st Amendment violation, and has been for as long as the 1st Amendment has existed. And no, there's zero claims from Twitter or Facebook being anything but a private company (link please?).

Thus the correction, so the other readers don't get it wrong like you did. You're welcome.

[baseline bum]

Birn snowflaking again

[ElNono]

Curious that you accept the fact that Twitter has a "block" feature, but disapprove of a particular person using it. Not only disapprove, but believe that it becomes illegal. Do any other politicians block people on Twitter? (I can save you some time and tell you that they do.)

It's no wonder the world becomes more dysfunctional every day.

I don't have to accept anything, Twitter is a private company that has a Term of Services and whether I want to enter into a binding, contractual agreement with them is entirely my decision. But when I do, I've agreed to the their terms.

And yes, the 1st Amendment does clearly spells out that it's government (and government only) that's barred from prohibiting speech (with a few exceptions, like the public hazard exception). It's the Cons ution that makes the distinction, not me.

Obviously, persons conducting government businesses (on Twitter or anywhere else) are on the hook for it. And no, that doesn't mean "any other politician", it means "any other government official".

The same 1st Amendment was drafted in 1791, I don't particularly think the world has become more dysfunctional since then.

[ElNono]

See, the argument here would be whether Trump uses his twitter account strictly for personal use, or to conduct government business. Clearly there's a mix of both (just one example, announcing government tariffs on twitter amounts to government business).

Once he crossed that road, his account becomes a government account, restricted by the 1st Amendment. Once he stops being a government official, he can resume restricting speech.

[ElNono]

Again, in the specific case Birn mentioned, the NFL was certainly wholly in charge to do whatever they wanted, as they're not a government en y. I would suspect their decision had more to do with marketing than anything else.

[cd021]

It's true the NFL has a rule regarding standing for the flag and the playing of the anthem. Your weak retort holds no water. Just look it up, moron.

The reason it's disrespecting the military is because there is a military honor guard holding the flag and standing at attention while the anthem is played. Stupid-ass....

If this was truly not about the flag and our military and all about the perceived "social injustice" (which is a lie) then why kneel at the anthem? Why not kneel on the first play of the game instead. Why the anthem? Answer me that Mr. woke anti-capitalism socialist.

-I double-checked, there was not a rule in place that required standing during the national anthem when he kneeled.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/there...162020168.html

-Kap wasn't' disrespecting the flag or the military, that's a silly take and one that is disproved by his actions of actually talking to veterans and getting their input.

-Whats a lie about what he is protesting? Just because you don't agree doesn't make it invalid.

-Let me get this straight, you're wrong so you resort to name calling? take the L. Don't you have some Nike's to burn?

[cd021]

Again, in the specific case Birn mentioned, the NFL was certainly wholly in charge to do whatever they wanted, as they're not a government en y. I would suspect their decision had more to do with marketing than anything else.

If you're referring to Birn saying that Kap and others had no right to kneel because there were rules in place, that is not accurate. There was not a rule requiring standing during the national anthem by the NFL and certainly nothing that could result in a fine from anything that I have see. That rule was later added post Kap.

[Birn]

Yeah, no. Feel free to argue with the courts. See:

https://int.nyt.com/data/do enthel...mized/full.pdf

or

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/172002.P.pdf

It's really nothing new either, it's akin to censorship, which is a 1st Amendment violation, and has been for as long as the 1st Amendment has existed. And no, there's zero claims from Twitter or Facebook being anything but a private company (link please?).

Thus the correction, so the other readers don't get it wrong like you did. You're welcome.

Now I remember why I never visit or post here. You're demonstrating the absolute idiocy and ignorance of most who traffic in this God-forsaken forum. You obviously didn't read the text of the SDNY ruling that you linked. Nor did you read my post nor pay attention to the fact I was talking about private accounts. I challenge you to read my post then read the text of the ruling you attached. The issue involved in this ruling deals with the official Twitter account of the President (POTUS account) that's used for official business. This is the account used by whoever is President - Trump, Obama, Bush, etc.

Trump also has an individual account - (TheRealDonaldTrump). This ruling doesn't apply to individual private accounts just as I was saying earlier. Go read my post again dummy. Here's the actual text from the ruling:

"The salient issues in this case arise from the decision of the President to use
a relatively new type of social media platform to conduct official business and to
interact with the public. We do not consider or decide whether an elected official
violates the Cons ution by excluding persons from a wholly private social
media account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media
companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms.
We do conclude, however, that the First Amendment does not permit a public
official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to
exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed
views with which the official disagrees. "

Next time, you need to listen and read instead of just doing a simple Google search and pasting content like a pretend fact checker.

If posters and readers here have any courage and wish to learn and gain knowledge...read my posts.

[Birn]

Birn snowflaking again

LOL Baseline Bum Cucking again!!

[Nathan89]

Kap is a patriot for grandstanding the anthem for his protest is a reach. California tried blocking an army vet from voting last midterm because he had an American flag on his clothing. Today a reporter was followed in Portland because he had an American flag on. Antifa routinely rips American flags out of the hands of others, including today in Portland. Kap painted the Betsy Ross flag as a symbol of racism. There is clearly a culture that despises America. Based on Kap reaching stances I'd say he embraces that culture. I hardly call that patriotic. Of course big brain Pop disagrees.

[Birn]

See, the argument here would be whether Trump uses his twitter account strictly for personal use, or to conduct government business. Clearly there's a mix of both (just one example, announcing government tariffs on twitter amounts to government business).

Once he crossed that road, his account becomes a government account, restricted by the 1st Amendment. Once he stops being a government official, he can resume restricting speech.

LOL!!!! You're just so wrong on so many levels. Are you really serious? You really believe what you just posted?

[Pavlov]

LOL. Straw man, ad hominem, strawman, non sequitur, etc. All your usual bag of tricks.

LOL, you were too stupid to notice I was just doing what he was doing.

[Pavlov]

Now I remember why I never visit or post here. You're demonstrating the absolute idiocy and ignorance of most who traffic in this God-forsaken forum. You obviously didn't read the text of the SDNY ruling that you linked. Nor did you read my post nor pay attention to the fact I was talking about private accounts. I challenge you to read my post then read the text of the ruling you attached. The issue involved in this ruling deals with the official Twitter account of the President (POTUS account) that's used for official business. This is the account used by whoever is President - Trump, Obama, Bush, etc.

Trump also has an individual account - (TheRealDonaldTrump). This ruling doesn't apply to individual private accounts just as I was saying earlier. Go read my post again dummy. Here's the actual text from the ruling:

"The salient issues in this case arise from the decision of the President to use
a relatively new type of social media platform to conduct official business and to
interact with the public. We do not consider or decide whether an elected official
violates the Cons ution by excluding persons from a wholly private social
media account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media
companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms.
We do conclude, however, that the First Amendment does not permit a public
official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to
exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed
views with which the official disagrees. "

Next time, you need to listen and read instead of just doing a simple Google search and pasting content like a pretend fact checker.

If posters and readers here have any courage and wish to learn and gain knowledge...read my posts.

Where does it say users can be blocked by @ realDonaldTrump?

[Birn]

-I double-checked, there was not a rule in place that required standing during the national anthem when he kneeled.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/there...162020168.html

-Kap wasn't' disrespecting the flag or the military, that's a silly take and one that is disproved by his actions of actually talking to veterans and getting their input.

-Whats a lie about what he is protesting? Just because you don't agree doesn't make it invalid.

-Let me get this straight, you're wrong so you resort to name calling? take the L. Don't you have some Nike's to burn?

You're playing semantics. The bottom line is the NFL has had this policy in place for over 40 years. The term used by the NFL is "policy" not "rule". It has the same effect because the NFL reserves the right to impose fines and penalties to those who violate the policy. As we've already discussed, the NFL chose not to enforce their right to punish violators. The article you posted makes it very clear that the NFL has had a policy of standing for the anthem since 1978. Here's the text from the NFL game operations manual that each team must follow:

“The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the playing of the National Anthem, players on the field should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. Players in the bench areas should do the same, and should line themselves up evenly along the sidelines. The home team should insure that the American Flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”

[Birn]

Where does it say users can be blocked by @ realDonaldTrump?

Right here idiot:

"We do not consider or decide whether an elected official
violates the Cons ution by excluding persons from a wholly private social
media account."

[Birn]

Kap is a patriot for grandstanding the anthem for his protest is a reach. California tried blocking an army vet from voting last midterm because he had an American flag on his clothing. Today a reporter was followed in Portland because he had an American flag on. Antifa routinely rips American flags out of the hands of others, including today in Portland. Kap painted the Betsy Ross flag as a symbol of racism. There is clearly a culture that despises America. Based on Kap reaching stances I'd say he embraces that culture. I hardly call that patriotic. Of course big brain Pop disagrees.

Preach brother!!!

[Pavlov]

Right here idiot:

"We do not consider or decide whether an elected official
violates the Cons ution by excluding persons from a wholly private social
media account."

Except the court found the account in question is not a wholly private social media account.

[Birn]

Except the court found the account in question is not a wholly private social media account.

Correct, because it was the official government Twitter account of the POTUS and not a private account. This is really very simple. All you have to do is read. Of course, it doesn't surprise me since so many Edgewood HS grads in this forum don't understand how to read basic English.

[exstatic]

Birn snowflaking again

. And thinking the SSB is played at funerals, even military ones. . Newsflash: it isn’t.

[Nathan89]

Is it patriotic to grandstand the anthem for any cause?

[Pavlov]

Correct, because it was the official government Twitter account of the POTUS and not a private account. This is really very simple. All you have to do is read. Of course, it doesn't surprise me since so many Edgewood HS grads in this forum don't understand how to read basic English.

you just contradicted yourself.

What high school did you attend?