Can you imagine somebody selling his bookmarked pages?

What muddied the waters a bit is that Judge Brownlie found that the plaintiff had been discriminated against on the grounds of political opinion but only because of a form of anti-discrimination law that is unique to Northern Ireland, namely: The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Section 3(1)(a) prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. However, that legislation was drafted with the intention of safeguarding individuals against 'being treated unfavourably because of their Unionist or Nationalist views'. The Order is drafted broadly enough to encompass the harm Mr Lee complained of. In her judgment, she stated

The irony at the time was (the law changed in Jan 2020) that whilst the Northern Ireland Assembly repeatedly refused to legalise same-sex marriage, it was illegal to refuse to bake a cake in support of it!

These so-called hard cases are replete with nuances that raise many other important considerations. For example, the concepts of freedom as non-interference and freedom as non-domination. With respect to the former, individuals are free to the extent that they enjoy resilient guarantees against arbitrary interference in their choices. Whereas in the case of the latter, freedom can be undermined without interference ever being suffered at all. Others need only to have the capacity or power to arbitrarily interfere in our choices, even where that power is never used.

22y love your radical and bias approach to ...almost everything

It's interesting to read you ,listing Trump's crimes , yet, why dont you apply the same logic to all the politics.. For ex. somehow Trumps ranting is so bad.. But the whole "Bengazi" operation and the death of John Christopher Stevens, then some 30k Hilary C emails deleted by accident..... Bombing for years Syria selling weapons to both sides etc etc ...
Where are we with Podesta case..? hear about that? or that's something we shouldnt be thinking about but but Trump saying "there was a fraud" that's so bad. Yet, someone else has hijacked the justice system after 2016 for some 2y and more to prove how the bad russians elected Trump , tons of money were spent on that alone , to impeach and finally to have the case dropped
I mean, do you see how ridiculous all this is ?

In the mean time, we could go even a bit further and think who got censored or held responsible for the death of David Kelly? Who, just like that, the morning when he was supposed to present the case in front of the british parliament decided to suicide himself near his house ?

I'm only saying this, to show how the way we think , and what we think is bad or good , morally acceptable or not is been fabricated and diffused as information of what is > good or >bad , hence the fact how everyone hates Trump and he's responsable for the evil in the world, is destroying democracy and so on ?? so yes, I dont think this is really your opinion since this is what the whole media has pre-fabricated as "reality" and people are only digesting it a bit and then sort of convince themselves how they've come up with this or that as an opinion .

Some can dish it out, but can't take it.

Snowflakes?

I see a bigly problem in 'if you don't actively and publicly agree/condemn with us we consider you an enemy'. And this is happening massively. It's a cognitive issue, just like to be able to identify the difference and consequences of your two examples of "freedoms".

If we apply that logic "cancel culture" and the theory "they're a private business they can do whatever they want ifyou're not happy then bye" , can be applied the other way around ??

Then Trump, or whoever the president is, can shut down businesses , let's say these ones "social platforms,forums,communication" ? He could find hundreds of excuses to do that, " on your platform there are pedofiles communicating, racist posting memes, not paying taxes, and so on " ?

The point is, arbitrary decisions are just inacceptable. So either way it is wrong.

If Twitter ,FB ,yt , wanted to ban Trump because he's a danger to the society then collect the information go to the tribunal illico presto , and let a panel of judges decide .
?

That's EXACTLY what Trump does and how he was using Twitter -- to bully, threaten and demonize anyone and everyone who disagreed with him or who he disagreed with.

1. There have been many times when left-wing posters have attacked me for not being left enough. However, that is their right.

2. There have been many times when right-wing posters have reacted negatively to my posts, but that is their right.

3. Freedom, to me, means living in a society where I can speak my mind on most things. However, a civil society should not allow a person to spread hate speech or incite crime without accountability. There are just too many followers who take those words seriously.

I still remember Sarah Palin using crossbow targets with faces of her opposing candidates. One of those candidates was shot and seriously injured. Sarah went on to say that was not her intention, which begs the question why she would then post it.

Edit: Here's an interesting editorial on the above incident: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ooting/342714/

__________________
Faith isn't about everything turning out okay. Faith is about being okay no matter how things turn out.

There were more than 60 court cases, including all the way to the Supreme Court, brought by Trump and his allies. Not one proved any widespread fraud and almost all were dismissed because there wasn't any evidence produced.

You could argue that an investigation would produce evidence. Canvassing is the process by which counties and states verify their results are accurate. In a sense, that's an investigation. In the State of Georgia, the Republican Secretary of State ordered their statewide canvass to be a hand recount of the results for the presidential race. No evidence of widespread fraud was found and the results were barely changed by the canvass. The state then proceeded with a standard recount as allowed by state law, and again did not turn up anything noteworthy.

If there was fraud on such a scale, local election officials would be screaming from the rooftops and have truckloads of evidence. I do remember one case clearly. A Trump supporter forged his deceased mother's signature on an absentee ballot application and was charged with fraud.

Please quote some of their twitter posts where these individuals incite violence. Promoting peaceful protests, yes. But encouraging people to be strong, take back the government, trial by combat, etc.? I doubt it.

Ok then how does it work? They are private companies with their own T&Cs. They get to decide who violated the T&Cs, even if you or I disagree with what the T&Cs are or how they're applied.

There’s serious discussion ongoing outside of the EF’s perimeters:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55609903

Besides that Chewbacca has been charged which is a good thing:
'QAnon Shaman' Jake Angeli charged over pro-Trump riots https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55606044

The law and order will be restored and hopefully people, that were not directly affected (families of those 5 deceased come to mind) can leave behind the events from last week and find the way to move forward with the new presidency.

Yes, thats one problem that happens on both, radical left and right, but thats not the point that 22y was making, as far as I understood.

There are certain action, that have to be condemned from every functioning member in a functional society. Just out of a sense of common sense, risk/probability assesment and and some basic knowlgedge of how democratic processes are supposed to work.
There's just no grey area there and for once I'm with Chuff, some BS can't be tolerated or left unchecked.

Isn't that strange though? I thought Republicans were the party of deregulation!

When you sign up to use the services of private companies, you agree to abide by their terms and conditions. Trump has gone against those T&C repeatedly. It's not "cancel culture", it's simply the application of the terms that he mistakenly thought he didn't need to stick to.

Another fine example of his delusional sense of entitlement.

This was his recent statement regarding his Twitter ban:

"Twitter is not about FREE SPEECH. They are all about promoting a Radical Left platform where some of the most vicious people in the world are allowed to speak freely. "

Can anyone spot the contradiction and hypocrisy?

Then why didn't Twitter or Facebook ban him before, as he violated the T&C repeatedly?

At that point, his lies hadn't yet caused the Capitol building to be stormed by thousands of crazy, violent people during a Congressional session, causing US politicians to be evacuated to safety and a police officer to be bludgeoned to death.

Because he was President, plain and simple. They should have closed his ordinary account when he became President so he could only use the Presidential one - that would probably have put him on the impeachment road long before they finally did it, given the things he's tweeted over the years.

I have to agree... it was madness to let him use his personal account to tweet without restriction while he was president. If they had shut that down, maybe things would have been a little different.

Although you'd like to think that he would have asserted some self-control and stopped using his own account whilst president - without being asked or forced to do so.

I really don't think you understand the issue. It's not a case of "group think" but of inciting crimes. Trump repeatedly posted statements that were untrue - lots of his tweets prior to his banning were underscored by a Twitter warning/disclaimer. He wasn't pushed out. He broke terms and conditions and therefore was barred from the platform.

It's nothing to do with political correctness either. China isn't a Pc situation, it's a communist country with, essentially, a country wide intranet. The world is seen througha government sanctioned filter. Not the same thing as (i think) you are saying.


This exactly. His hubris and desire for absolute power did this. He lost the election and cannot bear it.

And this.

JK Rowling was piled on because a very vocal minority didn't like the biological truths she was stating. Lies were told about her. Not quite the same.

Wholly agree.

It's not a "cognitive issue ", it's a human nature group pile on issue. That's how social media works. It's more contentious than IRl because folk feel brave when anonymised and behind a keyboard.

Absolutely. His is the POTUS: he should not be behaving like a spoiled 11 year old.

Entirely so.

Because he's the president. As Medea says below: