Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by dadudemon
No no, you've got that wrong.

A $150 million fine for posting the face and name of a mass murderer if they are a media company.

A $500 fine for individuals doing the same on social media.

But banning people or censoring people who use your platform, for whatever reason at all? No fine. No punishment. Nothing. Never.

I'll tell you why:

One has direct evidence of causing harm to others and death.

One just hurts your feelings.

I really don't care about someone's hurt feelings. Go join a different private club where your comments or postings are welcome. 🙂

Guess we'll agree to disagree 🙂

And can you at least agree that, as things currently stand, saying the name of these shooters on social media *would* be protected by the 1st amendment? Cuz it's not direct incitement.

Do you truly feel the government could step in and fine a media company for posting the names and succeed, after all the dust has settled and the court fights are over? Genuinely curious.

Belongs here too:

Originally posted by Surtur
Democrats, Moms Demand Action Politicize Vigil. Students Storm Out, Chant 'Mental Health!'

Lol they can't even stop themselves from politicizing a vigil.

I'm proud of these kids for walking out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your first amendment right is not protected if what you're doing causes harm or death of others.

We have years of documented evidence that broadcasting the names and faces of murders causes copy-cat scenarios.

To hell with your first amendment right to publish the name and face of a mass murderer.

Killing yourself? Okay, that's fine. But killing others? Homicide? No. That's not a protected right. The sooner humans realize that we are not cold, calculated, logical, sensible beings, the easier it will be to make changes that improves everyone's lives. There should never be a carte blanche right to free speech.

You're not losing any special right by not being able to plaster the name and face of a mass murderer on your news station, website, social media page, or blog. Trust me.

It's one thing to say you don't think the amendment should cover it, but to act like it currently wouldn't be covered by it is strange to me. Your feelings are irrelevant*, the fact is yes I would be covered under the 1A if I decided to join twitter and tweet out the names of the shooters because it's not a direct incitement of violence even *if* some crazy person saw the names and decided to pull a copy cat murder.

*I'm not disputing your claims that saying the names of killers can increase the likelihood of copy-cats, that I will assume is a fact. Where your feelings come into play is in saying this wouldn't be protected by the 1A. It totally would unless it was a direct inciting of violence.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's one thing to say you don't think the amendment should cover it, but to act like it currently wouldn't be covered by it is strange to me.

It doesn't cover it. It is allowed contrary to decades of precedence because old people don't understand the internets.

Originally posted by Surtur
Your feelings are irrelevant*, the fact is yes I would be covered under the 1A if I decided to join twitter and tweet out the names of the shooters because it's not a direct incitement of violence even *if* some crazy person saw the names and decided to pull a copy cat murder.

In general, no, that should not be protected speech since we have a long list of research and cases that shows this kind of behavior causes copy-cat scenarios. If you did it on purpose specifically to incite copy-cat killers, as the laws are currently interpreted by the old and out of touch legal system, you'd definitely get an indictment and it would not be protected speech. It's the same exact reason you can't test yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. Even testing the scenario will land you in criminal charges. So why is doing the equivalent online considered protected speech?

My feelings have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It doesn't cover it. It is allowed contrary to decades of precedence because old people don't understand the internets.

In general, no, that should not be protected speech since we have a long list of research and cases that shows this kind of behavior causes copy-cat scenarios. If you did it on purpose specifically to incite copy-cat killers, as the laws are currently interpreted by the old and out of touch legal system, you'd definitely get an indictment and it would not be protected speech. It's the same exact reason you can't test yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. Even testing the scenario will land you in criminal charges. So why is doing the equivalent online considered protected speech?

My feelings have nothing to do with it.

So now we're getting into intent. You have to prove a person said it specifically because they wanted people to become copy cat killers.

EDIT: If I went on social media and tweeted "The names of the killers are (such and such) and they are awful" should the government get involved?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No no, you've got that wrong.

A $150 million fine for posting the face and name of a mass murderer if they are a media company.

A $500 fine for individuals doing the same on social media.

But banning people or censoring people who use your platform, for whatever reason at all? No fine. No punishment. Nothing. Never.

I'll tell you why:

One has direct evidence of causing harm to others and death.

One just hurts your feelings.

I really don't care about someone's hurt feelings. Go join a different private club where your comments or postings are welcome. 🙂

If public services are forced to cator equally to all people, then why shouldn't social media public services be held to that standard?

We have a judge ruling The Donalds channel is a public forum. The fact is, social media is more then just a profit driven privately owned business now. It's every bit as essential as public roads, or public meeting grounds.

This needs to be addressed.

Originally posted by cdtm
If public services are forced to cator equally to all people, then why shouldn't social media public services be held to that standard?

We have a judge ruling The Donalds channel is a public forum. The fact is, social media is more then just a profit driven privately owned business now. It's every bit as essential as public roads, or public meeting grounds.

This needs to be addressed.

And also they can't go "muh private business" and then also scream "DO SOMETHING THEY SOLD ADS TO RUSSIANS!".

They cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Surtur
So now we're getting into intent. You have to prove a person said it specifically because they wanted people to become copy cat killers.

EDIT: If I went on social media and tweeted "The names of the killers are (such and such) and they are awful" should the government get involved?

Also, if the answer to the question in my edit is "yes and they should fine you"...what if I refuse to pay the fine? What should be done to me?

Originally posted by cdtm
If public services are forced to cator equally to all people, then why shouldn't social media public services be held to that standard?

Super simple:

They are public entities, not private entities.

Or did you intend to ask a different question but just worded this one with an easy to answer question? I really don't think you were setting me up for an easy win, here. I feel something is fishy...

Originally posted by cdtm
We have a judge ruling The Donalds channel is a public forum. The fact is, social media is more then just a profit driven privately owned business now. It's every bit as essential as public roads, or public meeting grounds.

I've already posted a lot about this: the ruling is wrong. It's not a public entity. They judges are ignorant and wrong. Hence me beating the drum about them being old and outdated.

Originally posted by Surtur
Also, if the answer to the question in my edit is "yes and they should fine you"...what if I refuse to pay the fine? What should be done to me?

You should have your wages garnished.

Never incarceration.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Super simple:

They are public entities, not private entities.

Or did you intend to ask a different question but just worded this one with an easy to answer question? I really don't think you were setting me up for an easy win, here. I feel something is fishy...

I've already posted a lot about this: the ruling is wrong. It's not a public entity. They judges are ignorant and wrong. Hence me beating the drum about them being old and outdated.

And what makes something private? Facebook and Youtube expressly open themselves up to the entire public. No real barriers to entry, no club smell. Come on in, produce content, and make us money.

No one said only a physical presence can be public. And if they had, definitions evolve. I would definitely discribe large social media outlets as public accommodation, due to the nature of the platforms. As sure as a grocery store or coffee shop is.

There is a difference between saying the names of the shooters and saying them and encouraging people to copy their acts.

Originally posted by cdtm
And what makes something private? Facebook and Youtube expressly open themselves up to the entire public. No real barriers to entry, no club smell. Come on in, produce content, and make us money.

Public access != public entity

And you have to make a private agreement to participate in the things we are talking about: EULAs.

This is about Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, right? Now YouTube, as well?

Originally posted by cdtm
I would definitely discribe large social media outlets as public accommodation, due to the nature of the platforms. As sure as a grocery store or coffee shop is.

Then you would be wrong to define it that way. Thankfully, we do not have state-owned and controlled social media platforms like China. 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
There is a difference between saying the names of the shooters and saying them and encouraging people to copy their acts.

A difference that is meaningless in this conversation, however. That's important.

Calling attention to the shooters is the problem. You can dress it up however you'd like. The best course of action, based on science, is to leave them unnamed, un-discussed. Including and especially not mentioning their motivations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A difference that is meaningless in this conversation, however. That's important.

Calling attention to the shooters is the problem. You can dress it up however you'd like. The best course of action, based on science, is to leave them unnamed, un-discussed. Including and especially not mentioning their motivations.

I agree they should remain unnamed, I do not agree that people should be punished for naming them.

And is there some specific case from the past you're thinking of when you talk about how saying the names would not be covered by the 1st amendment?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Public access != public entity

And you have to make a private agreement to participate in the things we are talking about: EULAs.

This is about Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, right? Now YouTube, as well?

Then you would be wrong to define it that way. Thankfully, we do not have state-owned and controlled social media platforms like China. 👆

Eula's are about as airtight as the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" rules in stores. They aren't actual law, more like guidelines.

And Starbucks isn't a "public entity", since the definition refers to government institutions. You aren't arguing Starbucks should have the right to discriminate, are you?

If you are, I can respect that. But that isn't the reality.

And one can argue any virtual public accommodation should be subject to the exact same non-discrimination policies as any brick and mortar public accommodation.

Originally posted by cdtm
Eula's are about as airtight as the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" rules in stores. They aren't actual law, more like guidelines.

That's not correct, either. They are private contracts executed between two agreeing parties. Contract law is what governs the contracts. The contracts themselves are not law.

Originally posted by cdtm
And Starbucks isn't a "public entity", since the definition refers to government institutions. You aren't arguing Starbucks should have the right to discriminate, are you?

If you are, I can respect that. But that isn't the reality.

Yes, I've argued this for ages. You can go to the cake-bake thread to see the posts upon posts where I made this argument.

Edit - To be clearer, Starbucks should have the right to discriminate against people for any reason. As should any non-state entity: in direct defiance of the American Civil Rights Act, articles six and seven.

Originally posted by cdtm
And one can argue any virtual public accommodation should be subject to the exact same non-discrimination policies as any brick and mortar public accommodation.

Under the incorrect interpretation of the law that is currently in place, yes, you can make the argument. You're right. 👆

I am just LURVIn how this thread has been DERAILED by the Cake Nonsense by our Love able impared CommieTards ...seeing as how the Shooters this time don't exaclty fall into their typical Alt Right Bullshit.....Cause THIS .....

Don't Look like your Typical "Alt Righter"

Nope Nope Nope...

Finally, the voice of reason returns. 👆

Reason is the First to be Silenced.