Twittergate information dump

[Seran]

Colluding with the government to suppress information is.

That's a pretty big leap from everything that has been been revealed to violation of first amendment rights, particularly as the government doesn't run Twitter or MSM. Considering even the original author ceded there was no government intercession, that is a massive leap in the dark.

I'm waiting to see what they have on Covid-19. Given the number of people crying about not being able to inject bleach after being told Trump was wrong about that, I'm going to presume the government protecting people from fake science that would harm or kill them will be a renewed since of butthurt. Afterall, the government has been warning people about the effects of smoking for decades, yet you don't see anyone crying about their right to be lied to about the positive health effects of lung/throat cancer.

[Parkbandit]

What is difficult to wrap your head around the fact there's no free speech guarantee in private enterprise? Newspapers print what they want, tv/internet news outlets feature what they want and content hosters allow material per their terms and conditions. Twitter didn't display stolen material, period, now stop crying.

The only one here who is crying is you.

"NO ONE CARES! WAA!"

Fucking retard.

[Parkbandit]

That's a pretty big leap from everything that has been been revealed to violation of first amendment rights, particularly as the government doesn't run Twitter or MSM. Considering even the original author ceded there was no government intercession, that is a massive leap in the dark.

I'm waiting to see what they have on Covid-19. Given the number of people crying about not being able to inject bleach after being told Trump was wrong about that, I'm going to presume the government protecting people from fake science that would harm or kill them will be a renewed since of butthurt. Afterall, the government has been warning people about the effects of smoking for decades, yet you don't see anyone crying about their right to be lied to about the positive health effects of lung/throat cancer.

It's like you hear it once on MSNBC and you are like one of those autistic people who just keep regurgitating it... even when overwhelming evidence to illustrate you are wrong.

"TRUMP COLLUDED!"
"TRUMP SAID TO INJECT BLEACH!"
"TRUMP SAID HE WANTS TO BAN THE CONSTITUTION!"

You are literally the dumbest person on this forum... and 2nd place isn't even that close.

[Suppressed Poet]

That's a pretty big leap from everything that has been been revealed to violation of first amendment rights, particularly as the government doesn't run Twitter or MSM. Considering even the original author ceded there was no government intercession, that is a massive leap in the dark.

I'm waiting to see what they have on Covid-19. Given the number of people crying about not being able to inject bleach after being told Trump was wrong about that, I'm going to presume the government protecting people from fake science that would harm or kill them will be a renewed since of butthurt. Afterall, the government has been warning people about the effects of smoking for decades, yet you don't see anyone crying about their right to be lied to about the positive health effects of lung/throat cancer.

If someone wants to go Twitter or Facebook or whatever and claim that smoking cigarettes has net-positive health benefits, it’s not the government’s job to censor them. The Surgeon General’s warning on a box of smokes is completely different than telling a media company to silence someone for spreading disinformation. The latter is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. The media companies can police themselves as they see fit without government interference. Or, even better, the community can call said person that claims smoking is good for your health a dumbass much like we do to you. Caveat emptor.

[Parkbandit]

Lying to congress,

If this can be proven, I'm all for it. People need to know that when they take the oath and they knowingly lie to cover up, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

lying to promote his financial interests at the public's expense

Lying isn't a crime, unless you do it under oath in Congress, in Court or to law enforcement.

If lying was a crime, we would have no one in Congress.

conspiracy to conceal a crime

No idea what you are talking about here. Elaborate?

providing funding outside of the law for research that was specifically prohibited

This will be difficult to prove as he pushed money in to X and they funneled it into Y who funneled it into Z.

conspiracy to conceal that funding, based on the hints of what is coming, conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights as a government employee

We will have to see how this pans out.

Hey, if I thought i could get away with it, I would charge him as an accessory to homicide in the NY state nursing home deaths.

I believe Cuomo or whomever made the decision to put covid positive people into nursing homes should be charged for sure. We were told from the very onset that the most vulnerable were elderly.

[Shaps]

Nothing will happen... Democrats don't care, because they're partisan hack shitbags that only care about winning.

If they cheat to win, doesn't matter... no big deal.

You can show them all the evidence in the world, all the lies, all the cheating, all the collusion (the real kind)... and they still won't care.

The morons outnumber the rational at this point.

[Seran]

If someone wants to go Twitter or Facebook or whatever and claim that smoking cigarettes has net-positive health benefits, it’s not the government’s job to censor them. The Surgeon General’s warning on a box of smokes is completely different than telling a media company to silence someone for spreading disinformation. The latter is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. The media companies can police themselves as they see fit without government interference. Or, even better, the community can call said person that claims smoking is good for your health a dumbass much like we do to you. Caveat emptor.

Why have an FDA, SEC, CDC or even a DOJ if it's not the duty of the government to protect citizens from harm of those who'd deliberately, or incidentally due to their own ignorance, in furtherance of their own agenda, power or wealth? The answer is, it does have that duty as defined by our Constitution. Only a handful of you backwards libertarians have this misguided notion that ignorance is holy.

Abrahms v United States held:

that a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means, is not open to question.

Brandenburg v Ohio held:

“The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Korematsu v. United States ultimately held that the duty of the federal government, where clear overriding state interest was demonstrated, was to protect our country from domestic or foreign threats and individual freedoms need be at times held secondary.

[Fortybox]

That's a pretty big leap from everything that has been been revealed to violation of first amendment rights, particularly as the government doesn't run Twitter or MSM. Considering even the original author ceded there was no government intercession, that is a massive leap in the dark.

I'm waiting to see what they have on Covid-19. Given the number of people crying about not being able to inject bleach after being told Trump was wrong about that, I'm going to presume the government protecting people from fake science that would harm or kill them will be a renewed since of butthurt. Afterall, the government has been warning people about the effects of smoking for decades, yet you don't see anyone crying about their right to be lied to about the positive health effects of lung/throat cancer.

So you didn’t read the TwitterFiles yet. Got it.

[Suppressed Poet]

Why have an FDA, SEC, CDC or even a DOJ if it's not the duty of the government to protect citizens from harm of those who'd deliberately, or incidentally due to their own ignorance, in furtherance of their own agenda, power or wealth? The answer is, it does have that duty as defined by our Constitution. Only a handful of you backwards libertarians have this misguided notion that ignorance is holy.

Abrahms v United States held:



Brandenburg v Ohio held:



Korematsu v. United States ultimately held that the duty of the federal government, where clear overriding state interest was demonstrated, was to protect our country from domestic or foreign threats and individual freedoms need be at times held secondary.

Sure there are limits.

You can’t yell fire in a crowded building when there is none.
You can’t make a joke with the TSA that your luggage has a bomb in it.
You can’t threaten imminent harm to someone.

You can have the opinion that ivermectin can be useful to treat Covid.
You are free to articulate that the Hunter Biden laptop story by the NY Post is real and contains damning evidence that the President of the United States is corrupt as fuck.
You can object to calling someone by their made up pronoun.

The government cannot and should not censor protected 1st Amendment speech. None of your cited case law supports otherwise. Also…political or not…the first person responsible for your safety & wellbeing is yourself. Americans don’t submit to tyranny. We are citizens not subjects. If you are not responsible enough to exercise your own independent freedoms and require government to treat you like a child, there are plenty of other countries in the world much more suited to that subjugation of it’s people.

[Seran]

Sure there are limits.

You can’t yell fire in a crowded building when there is none.
You can’t make a joke with the TSA that your luggage has a bomb in it.
You can’t threaten imminent harm to someone.

You can have the opinion that ivermectin can be useful to treat Covid.
You are free to articulate that the Hunter Biden laptop story by the NY Post is real and contains damning evidence that the President of the United States is corrupt as fuck.
You can object to calling someone by their made up pronoun.

The government cannot and should not censor protected 1st Amendment speech. None of your cited case law supports otherwise. Also…political or not…the first person responsible for your safety & wellbeing is yourself. Americans don’t submit to tyranny. We are citizens not subjects. If you are not responsible enough to exercise your own independent freedoms and require government to treat you like a child, there are plenty of other countries in the world much more suited to that subjugation of it’s people.

You can articulate you believe something is useful, but not at the exclusion of actual, proven medical treatment. That goes against the public welfare.

The government didn't order censorship of Biden's dick pics. Private enterprise is free to exclude whatever baseless stories or opinions without evidence they so choose.

You may call anyone whomever you wish and your employer is free to terminate you for cause if you do so at the cost of customers.

You're confusing oppression with supporting the public welfare and doing what's best for the country in light of legitimate national security threats.