That’s a good notion. Writing to their sponsors could also have an impact. With one exception, the outlets’ sponsors are easy to determine; just google. I couldn’t find OANN’s sponsors, but its service carriers (Verizon; AT&T; DIRECTV; PRISMTV; etc.) can be targeted, for what it’s worth.
5 Likes
Yeah… now all those left wing pinko commies that were suspended or banned from twitter… now we have to shut down their speech for the good of America… I mean, fascism, okay, but COMMUNISM… never here! /s
13 Likes
Sigh…here we go again.
ETA: You seem to be under the very misguided and bizarre impression that Twitter is a public forum supported by the US government and that all of its members’ posts are thus subject to First Amendment protections. It is not. Twitter having been registered and taxed as a corporation doesn’t make it a government entity from the point of view of the First Amendment. The same goes for the New York Times Company (publisher of the NYT), NewsCorp (parent company of Faux News and the Fox Network), and Happy Mutants, LLC (the publisher of this site).
Given your Josh Hawley style views of the First Amendment, you might also want to review this topic:
16 Likes
14 Likes
It’s certainly possible to believe lies you tell yourself.
Hman memory is absolute trash. You can pretty easily make up fake memories with little more than the intention of wanting to believe.
1 Like
Twitter isn’t the government. It’s not censorship for twitter to choose to stop doing business with ANYONE.
IF YOU DISAGREE, THEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS WITH BOTH THE CONSTITUTION AND CAPITALISM.
Nobody is entitled to anyone else’s private property. Twitter is private property.
Say a crazy man starts waving a gun around on your porch while ranting about how this is his house, and how he wants to use your car to do donuts in the lawn. YOU are claiming it is a violation of his free speech to lock him out of your house and call the cops.
2 Likes
right? and gee, Peter, how do we KNOW it’s 74 million? because they voted, and their votes were counted …so, you know, as a result by definition no disenfranchisement occurred. what a maroon.
2 Likes
Here’s the problem, if the villagers are getting on their messaging app and arranging to show up at the house of a suspected witch carrying pitchforks and torches, should the accused witch just block them on the app?
At this point ‘civilized democracy’ is the accused witch here, these guys are trying to overthrow the government, they’re trying to steal the election by claiming it was stolen from them. And they’re basing their whole argument on stuff that is proven to be false.
We all know free speech has its limits, I can’t call for the execution of an elected figure-- the mob was fully ready to execute Pence, Pelosi and others (or at least hold them hostage, a federal crime.) And it was the kind of talk that Navarro continues to spew that got us here. Even if you argue that Trump didn’t specifically call for the mob to murder members of congress, the fact that he watched it all unfold on live TV and did nothing was his tacit approval [of what they did do.] Navarro knows what his words mean.
9 Likes
(From: here)
12 Likes
I’m sorry, this is patent nonsense.
No amount of my tweeting is going to result in riling up a mob to attack the capital of the US. I know in fairy-land people like to pretend that “words will never harm me” but there is such a thing as harmful speech, and it really does cause loss of life, and part of what decides if that is true or not is the influence of the speaker, which you simply cannot ignore with a straight face.
But even with influence aside, just because I may be white and male doesn’t mean I don’t believe the women who have left twitter because of rampant misogyny, especially in my chosen field of work, nor does it mean I ignore the suicides or other self-harm that have come on the back of bullying and harassment online, nor does it make me turn a blind-eye to what happened in the capital on the 6th, which was plainly fucking obviously going to happen to anyone who was paying attention.
Your apparent fantasy that speech is fine, it can be “countered” with more speech and is otherwise a harmless little distraction that should be ignored is so plainly and obviously refutable as soon as you look around as to be laughably naive and plainly disconnected from reality almost to the level of being a driving trollies position at this point.
I sure as shit am not leaving posts calling for violence, expressing hatred for others, or spreading false information on this forum, nor is Boing Boing willing to have anything to do with it, and frankly we are perfectly fine if the level of disappointment you feel at our decision to protect our readers and the population at large from that speech is, in your mind, as bad as the speech itself.
26 Likes
12 Likes
I should denounce Peter Navarro’s lies … on my show, on Fox
That makes perfect sense 
10 Likes
Anybody else remember Bertrand Russell and that time a well known fascist wanted to “debate” him?
Dear Sir Oswald,
Thank you for your letter and for your enclosures. I have given some thought to our recent correspondence. It is always difficult to decide on how to respond to people whose ethos is so alien and, in fact, repellent to one’s own. It is not that I take exception to the general points made by you but that every ounce of my energy has been devoted to an active opposition to cruel bigotry, compulsive violence, and the sadistic persecution which has characterised the philosophy and practice of fascism.
I feel obliged to say that the emotional universes we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest ways opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from association between us.
I should like you to understand the intensity of this conviction on my part. It is not out of any attempt to be rude that I say this but because of all that I value in human experience and human achievement.
Yours sincerely,
Bertrand Russell
21 Likes
That may be the finest literary “fuck you, fascist” in existence.
14 Likes
2 Likes
" Maria Bartiromo: ‘We know that there were irregularities in this election.’"
–Otherwise Trump would have only gotten half as many votes as he did.
5 Likes
Yes, Meliz, all people are equal, but some (e.g. corporations) are more equal than others, and have been endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights. Foremost among these is the right to do any damn thing they please.
2 Likes
Please… if you must use a diminutive, it’s Melz.
That said:
9 Likes
