Amazon

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Blue Heeler

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
951
Reaction score
1,557
Location
Oklahoma
Let me rephrase that:

"There are different types of infringement. Thee reason for different types of infringement is because there are different REASONS or OBJECTIVES for infringing."

See how that sounds when applied to the 2A? Infringement is infringement. Same thing is true with speech. Censorship is censorship.

No grasshopper. It is not. You are not comprehending "intent".

Let me try to dumb this down for you.

There are over 31 flavors of ice cream. But not all ice cream tastes the same.


YouAreRetarded.jpg
 

Rez Exelon

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
3,483
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Tulsa
No grasshopper. It is not. You are not comprehending "intent".

Let me try to dumb this down for you.

There are over 31 flavors of ice cream. But not all ice cream tastes the same.


View attachment 188216
Better be careful sugar --- mods are watching for people dropping insults like that. And it always kind of brings shame upon the person when you have to results to such responses.

Intent doesn't matter. It just plain doesn't. If I'm at the range, think my gun is clear and have an accidental discharge that kills someone, does my intent matter? No. This board is full of people that claim that there is no excuse for intent on infringement of the 2A and the same is true on speech. It's censored or it's not. Whether there is intent driving the censorship is not the question. That's a separate exercise in asking "are we okay with this censorship".
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,860
Reaction score
2,054
Location
Oxford, MS
Here is Amazon's response to Parlor's TRO request, in case anyone is interesting, while the first paragraph lays it out pretty plainly, the four page is a list of examples of parlor posts that amazon says supports it's views that Parlor violated the terms of their hosting agreement by failing to moderate content that advocated for illegal activities.

I don't know how many of these i can even post here as an example, but “After the firing squads are done with the politicians the teachers are next" might be one of the more tame ones. If a mod feels this is too much then you can remove it or i can edit the post.

Here is the opening to the response:
This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade. Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition.
 

Blue Heeler

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
951
Reaction score
1,557
Location
Oklahoma
Better be careful sugar --- mods are watching for people dropping insults like that. And it always kind of brings shame upon the person when you have to results to such responses.

Intent doesn't matter. It just plain doesn't. If I'm at the range, think my gun is clear and have an accidental discharge that kills someone, does my intent matter? No. This board is full of people that claim that there is no excuse for intent on infringement of the 2A and the same is true on speech. It's censored or it's not. Whether there is intent driving the censorship is not the question. That's a separate exercise in asking "are we okay with this censorship".

OMG! I might be "shamed" for talking down to you?!? I ... I don't know how I would be able to cope with such a heavy stone upon my shoulders.

You are wrong (still). I am not and have not argued that censorship is not censorship or to your other non sequitur examples that infringement is not infringement. BUT there are different reasons/objectives for censoring speech.

Should one be allowed to falsely claim “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, or should they be censored and not allowed to do such?

With that, you don’t get the intent for censorship. The objective of the mods to (gasp) censor posts is to support civil discourse. The intent for the left to censor the right is to limit thought to only their political convenience.

To argue as you have that we live in a dichotomous world where "it is or isn't", is puerile at best. It’s censorship or not censorship. It’s infringement or it is not infringement. Apples are not oranges, genius.
 

Rez Exelon

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
3,483
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Tulsa
OMG! I might be "shamed" for talking down to you?!? I ... I don't know how I would be able to cope with such a heavy stone upon my shoulders.

You are wrong (still). I am not and have not argued that censorship is not censorship or to your other non sequitur examples that infringement is not infringement. BUT there are different reasons/objectives for censoring speech.

Should one be allowed to falsely claim “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, or should they be censored and not allowed to do such?

With that, you don’t get the intent for censorship. The objective of the mods to (gasp) censor posts is to support civil discourse. The intent for the left to censor the right is to limit thought to only their political convenience.

To argue as you have that we live in a dichotomous world where "it is or isn't", is puerile at best. It’s censorship or not censorship. It’s infringement or it is not infringement. Apples are not oranges, genius.

Still not reading I see. I wonder if they can add a books on tape reply option to help eventually. You're merging two questions. If something IS or IS NOT censorship is question 1. Whether that censorship is ACCEPTABLE or NOT ACCEPTABLE is the second question.

Banning someone from yelling "FIRE" in a crowed theatre, like it or not, IS censoring them. But we as a society have determined that in that case, it's an ACCEPTABLE censorship. Your argument of intent only factors into the question of acceptability. Jeepers, this is not all that hard.

And I don't really care if you are shamed or not. I just think it'd be funny if your post was deemed to be not acceptable and was therefore censored by the mods despite your intent.
 

Blue Heeler

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
951
Reaction score
1,557
Location
Oklahoma
Banning someone from yelling "FIRE" in a crowed theatre, like it or not, IS censoring them. But we as a society have determined that in that case, it's an ACCEPTABLE censorship.

You are not bright enough to understand but you made my point. It's not that censorship is censorship as you continually try to frame this argument to be BUT that there is a reason for such.

You stated ...

If OSA censors dirty language, we're censoring speech. Are YOU okay with that? If so, why?

And I answered that there are reasons (like not yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre) for such. The mods here do such to maintain civil discourse. On the flip side, there is censorship for political convenience that only the left, the CCP, DPRK and a handful of living Nazis think is OK.

Then you went off on your non sequitur bender on “infringement is infringement” to reframe this argument to what it is not. Try to focus.

Your argument of intent only factors into the question of acceptability.

Are you wearing a ball gag which prohibits your from moving your lips to read? Don’t even want to speculate how in the wide world of sports you came up with that one. Has nothing to do with “acceptability”. Go back and reread my comments ... and take the ball gag out.

I just think it'd be funny if your post was deemed to be not acceptable and was therefore censored by the mods despite your intent.

Sounds like you need a tissue and a hug.
 

Blue Heeler

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
951
Reaction score
1,557
Location
Oklahoma
Here is Amazon's response to Parlor's TRO request, in case anyone is interesting, while the first paragraph lays it out pretty plainly, the four page is a list of examples of parlor posts that amazon says supports it's views that Parlor violated the terms of their hosting agreement by failing to moderate content that advocated for illegal activities.

I don't know how many of these i can even post here as an example, but “After the firing squads are done with the politicians the teachers are next" might be one of the more tame ones. If a mod feels this is too much then you can remove it or i can edit the post.

Here is the opening to the response:


Their response is on par with David Berkowitz saying a dog told him to do it.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom