-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict
- Thread starter SpaceCrystal
- Start date
yes, republicans are famous for their consistency in putting forth their ideology.
Any and all censorship of expression from the government is bad, full stop. It doesnt matter who does it.
If there's anything I know about gamerbros and it's their ability to handle things with grace and civility
....haha sigh,
Now watch how they'll spin this as"um yeah totally meant this to do this"
Think stuff like this should go on the gaming side so folk can stop thinking politicians are going to do the right thing about lootboxes.
The CDA is already unconstitutional on its face and this is just more reason to get rid of it
but an executive order can't create power out of thin air so this seems pretty toothless. Section 230 doesn't let the FTC or FCC (or President) decide who is protected so even if they try to enact a rule (something trump admin is really bad at) what could they even realistically do?
also these 2 agencies don't even answer to Trump (though that is probably unconstitutional too)
but an executive order can't create power out of thin air so this seems pretty toothless. Section 230 doesn't let the FTC or FCC (or President) decide who is protected so even if they try to enact a rule (something trump admin is really bad at) what could they even realistically do?
also these 2 agencies don't even answer to Trump (though that is probably unconstitutional too)
This administration is what the second amendment is built for but as you can see the second amendment folk have been put on blast and shown to be full of shit.
If this went to the supreme court (and I don't think it will, but just to be hypothetical), how many of the right-leaning justices do you think will vote in favor of this?
I really doubt it'll be 5-4 like usual, but at least Kavanaugh would have to vote for this, right?
Maybe I'm just being really cynical.
I really doubt it'll be 5-4 like usual, but at least Kavanaugh would have to vote for this, right?
Maybe I'm just being really cynical.
I doubt it, self awareness and introspection aren't their strong suits.
They just think this EO will silence SJWs. They can continue to troll and shitpost.
Yeah, they don't care as along as their life of living in filth in their parents home and playing video games without being bothered to watch their language on game chat isn't interrupted they can care less the world burns around them.
Lmao.
Can't wait to not actually vote but be reported as voting for Putin in 2024.
I would tend to agree, but there is zero chance this passes any constitutional threshold.
This isn't us thinking about the SCOTUS "protecting" us as much as it anticipating how they'll act here.
The SCOTUS has a very very heavy conservative lean now but that does not equate to "HAIL TRUMP 100% OF THE TIME". Don't forget that they shut down the census question because it was just that blatant.
Not everything has to be hair on fire, Thomas wouldn't support this, much less Roberts and Alito.
If we can't impeach the president after he's committed obvious violations against the Constitution, how is this violation any different?
Trump will continue to do whatever the fuck he pleases, and no one is going to stop him if we're not even willing try him for the crimes that he has already committed.
Trump will continue to do whatever the fuck he pleases, and no one is going to stop him if we're not even willing try him for the crimes that he has already committed.
only because it was procedurally that blatant, not ideologically
The problem was that nobody asked for the change so they went and got the DOJ to request it so that they could have cover for doing it
I agree with your larger point, but there is no love for free speech on either side of the court outside of political donations. The CDA has already been to SCOTUS before more than once, but after originally tossing it they've been receptive to it and the amendments congress has made since
He is wholly in his ability to try and execute an executive order that is unconstitutional, that is the way our system works.
Twitter in particular openly admits that prominent Republicans can violate their TOS because otherwise they'd have to ban a bunch of them for hate speech, incitement, etc.
It's impressive how consistently American conservatives wave the bloody shirt on the exact issues that they're already winning. The U.S. desperately needs a viable left alternative, because these people are in total victory lap mode and that's going to lead to some dark things.
It's impressive how consistently American conservatives wave the bloody shirt on the exact issues that they're already winning. The U.S. desperately needs a viable left alternative, because these people are in total victory lap mode and that's going to lead to some dark things.
Thats just a piece of paper that is trumped by green peices of paper. (Not that order stands a chance had they brought it forward)
I know. I'm saying that I wouldn't be so certain that his EO wouldn't be enforced in the end.
I know--I was playing off the poster's idea of it being a bill.
This would get crushed in the courts.
This makes no sense to me. If you have two people trying to spread hateful and racist ideology on social Media, you don't ban Joe Schmo with his 200 followers over a politician who actually has the power to influence people. It's so ass backwards.
Trump was talking about "having a bigger nuclear button than Kim Jong Ill" via fucking Tweets and Jack was basically like "well boys will be boys."
The threat of nuclear fucking holocaust wasn't enough.
He can instate the executive order, and any judge worth something will strike it down.
The question is: will the majority of Republican supreme court judges side with Trump or humanity.
No, I can say with 99.9% certainty they wouldn't side with Trump on this. Even though a few of the conservatives on the court are scum, they are still educated on law and you can only twist logic so much.
You've misread what that's actually about. They're not actual free speech absolutists, they just want far right ideas normalized and they're happy to use the hammer of the state against everyone else.
Follow a prominent right wing "free speech" figure and enjoy the flood of comments supporting things like turning Google into a public utility so they can control it politically. There's zero legitimate free speech principles on display, they just want to concern troll liberals into hearing from lunatics.
They're often the very same people trying to deplatform their opposition. They have nothing to say about laws that put your job on the line if you support BDS. They make blacklists of journalists and professors. Don't fall for their bullshit.
His crowd is the "he says that he'll do bad things, but he'll only apply them to the people I don't like" crowd.
Lots of dummies voted for him because he said he'd control the border and were shocked when their spouses/friends/family were deported.
I'm sure there are a ton of free speech warriors who think he's going to shut up those SJWs and let them continue to talk about how they hate the Jews.
Well, I mean you're talking about them like they're rational or something.
Yeah. Incredibly scary how the norms can quickly change with the wrong person in control.
Sorry folks, my bad I did not thought this through. Thanks for the replies.
And no I don't think I follow any right-wing "free speech" figure, so I am kind of lost.
They don't believe in free speech, which I want to separate from your specific reference because this is actually an extension of the "muh free speech" complaint. They are saying sites must allow conservatives to say whatever they want because of, well.. "muh free speech"
It's actually an argument against the rights of the companies (association and speech) but it is no different than their complaints against universities and other forums that have rejected the right-wing
The hypocrisy is really that they argue for a free market while at the same time saying businesses must cater to them