The irony is that this itself is misinformation.

Quick reminder:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment absolutely gives me the right to shitpost and say whatever I want on the internet.

Especially since the same First Amendment protects those mendacious lying fucks on CNN, MSNBC, etc. to also spread disinformation like Russian Collusion, pee-pee tapes, Kavanaugh the rapist, Rittenhouse the murderer, etc.

You’re just mad that you’re losing control of the disinformation monopoly.

And while we’re on the topic of spreading misinformation about Constitutional Amendments.

The Second Amendment does in face give me the right to own guns, even machine guns and explosives.

 

Spread the love

By J. Kb

15 thoughts on “In fact is most certainly does”
    1. The First limits the Government.

      Twitter et al is a private company. It has the right to determine what it will allow. Not so???

      1. @Ziggy89: If they behaved properly. They are a platform and they are protected by Title 230 from liability from what they allow to be posted.

        To beat the question death, why can restaurants, clubs, stores, etc. choose to select their customers? Because they are considered “open to the public” and thus, by law, forbidden to do so. (Whether those laws are moral is another question.)

      2. When it is effectively a monopoly (or duopoly)?
        .
        No, not so. This has already been decided, e.g. if a service is acting like a utility then it must provide equal access.
        .
        Or, if you prefer, under section 230, if a service censors content based on anything but illegality of said content, it loses its protection and takes on editorial liability.
        .
        Either way, the company cannot act as both a public forum and as a private company. It has to be one or the other, not which is most convenient to claim at the moment.

      3. As Neil Smith pointed out, a “corporation” is a government-created construct that is given privileged not held by the individual making up and owning that corporation. So, quite arguably, the restrictions in the Constitution apply to it.

  1. Even more ironically, the only time free speech matters is when it’s what someone else would disagree with or call disinformation. If everyone agrees, the idea of free speech is meaningless.
    .
    Oh, and The Second Amendment does in face give me the right to own guns, even machine guns and explosives. is backwards. The Second Amendment does not give you those rights, it recognizes you already have those rights as part of being human. What it does is tell the Feds that they have no power to take those rights away from you.

    1. More precisely, as a Texas supreme court decision in (I think) the 1830s recognized, the wording of the 2nd Amendment restricts all governments, not just the Federal one. The 1st Amendment is the one that constrains only Congress, but the 2nd is not so limited.
      And as Madison pointed out, the 2nd Amendment is redundant. He’s right, except for the fact that politicians don’t honor the plain English meaning of the Constitution. But without the 2nd Amendment, the 9th and 10th would still prevent the Feds from infringing our right to arms, and without any of the Bill of Rights that is still true simply because the enumerated powers (article 1 section 8) do not enumerate a power to regulate arms.

      1. @pkoning: IIRC, the 14th Amendment was supposed to apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments.

  2. Better yet, the 2A allows one to own all arms and armament and armor because God gave us those rights above the State.

    So, switchblades, brass knuckles, saps, knucklebusters, baseball bats with spikes and wire, flamethrowers, throwing stars, caltrops, toepoppers, IEDs and, yes, chemical biological and nuclear weapons. Because the 2A assumes that whomever has all of that isn’t an insane sockpuppet of a leftist poopslinger (seeing as how all, or most all, mad bombers and mass murderers have all been leftist jackwagons and leftist poopslingers.)

    As to Takei, you’d think that someone who experienced a fully weaponized socio-democratic administration first hand would have learned his lesson and become more right wing than St. Pinochet of the Helicopter People. What a dumbass.

  3. The Second Amendment does in face [sic] give me the right to own guns, even machine guns and explosives.

    Sorry, I’m gonna be “that guy” for a moment….

    The Second Amendment, in fact, gives you … nothing.

    The Second Amendment recognizes and codifies into law a pre-existing right, granted by God, that predates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    If we accept the Leftist premise that an Amendment in the Bill of Rights “gives” us anything, then we accept that it can be taken by repealing that Amendment.

    Let’s not make it easier to remove rights.

    [End “that guy” rant.]

  4. Charleton Heston was on something back-in-the-day, maybe G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show, maybe not, talking about his career and Gore Vidal’s name came up. Heston opined that Vidal was the sort who gave homosexuality a bad name.

    I think that fits Takei pretty well, wot?

  5. George Takei … the man who, years after the fact, is doing a good job of ruining ST:TOS for me.

    It is possible for an actor to be very intelligent, eloquent, and well-informed outside of acting. Dolph Lundgren comes to mind, the man has a degree in chemical engineering (and was granted scholarships to pursue it). But Mr. Lundgren is decidedly an outlier in this respect.

Login or register to comment.