the whole "innocent until proven guilty" shit is just as stupid as the people whining about the first amendment when twitter suspends them or whatever. The whole point is to protect you from the state. Every single American could believe Gaetz is guilty of trafficking a minor and he would still get a trial and have his rights respected. Call me a lib for it if you want, but that's probably a good thing because the bourgeois state probably wouldn't like to treat us the same way (I know it doesn't but at least in theory it is supposed to). I never entered into a social contract with Gaetz so I can judge him however I want and I don't have a monopoly on violence so I don't owe him the presumption of innocence.
In the Reputation Economy, you can be fucked pretty hard long before the state gets its hands on you. Particularly true if you're a politician, as your whole job hinges on people's impression of you.
What bothers me about Greenwald's defense of Gaetz is that Gaetz is a stooge for the MIC and has been precisely because his fiance - Ginger Luckey, jesus christ what a name - has grabbed him by the dick and dragged him into it. On policy alone, Greenwald should theoretically hate this guy. Why is he bending over backwards to defend Gaetz under the banner of sex-trafficking of a fucking minor?
It's like going to bat for OJ Simpson by defending his reckless driving.
Socialists generally believe for-profit anything is fundamentally awful, and at best, tainted. That's not the issue we're talking about here. So these fundamentally dogshit entities propagating moral or social panics is just par for the freaking course.
Not OP but I think the thesis is that censorship by private entities isn't a first amendment issue because the constitution only applies to state actors. Similarly the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal test that only applies to the state, because of the power imbalance between individuals and the state. By comparison, in civil trials, the standard is "balance of probabilities".
No and that wasn't the point either. If I read the post correctly, OP is saying that "innocent before proven guilty" is a standard that only applies to the state. He then mentioned the first amendment as another commonly misinterpreted standard that only applies to the state. You have skipped entirely past the primary point, and latched on to the free speech example for some reason.
EDIT: also I see that OP has already replied to you, so go argue with him instead lol
My point is that the first amendment is very clear in only protecting speech from the government and anyone who is citing it in relation to media censorship clearly hasn't read the amendment.
My views on media censorship are to expect it. I dislike it when causes and people I support are censored, but I don't particularly subscribe to the liberal notion that free speech must be protected for anyone from everyone else at all costs. Media is a tool of class war and it should be treated as such.
the whole "innocent until proven guilty" shit is just as stupid as the people whining about the first amendment when twitter suspends them or whatever. The whole point is to protect you from the state. Every single American could believe Gaetz is guilty of trafficking a minor and he would still get a trial and have his rights respected. Call me a lib for it if you want, but that's probably a good thing because the bourgeois state probably wouldn't like to treat us the same way (I know it doesn't but at least in theory it is supposed to). I never entered into a social contract with Gaetz so I can judge him however I want and I don't have a monopoly on violence so I don't owe him the presumption of innocence.
deleted by creator
Hey you're trampling on my first amendment rights by disagreeing with me
In the Reputation Economy, you can be fucked pretty hard long before the state gets its hands on you. Particularly true if you're a politician, as your whole job hinges on people's impression of you.
What bothers me about Greenwald's defense of Gaetz is that Gaetz is a stooge for the MIC and has been precisely because his fiance - Ginger Luckey, jesus christ what a name - has grabbed him by the dick and dragged him into it. On policy alone, Greenwald should theoretically hate this guy. Why is he bending over backwards to defend Gaetz under the banner of sex-trafficking of a fucking minor?
It's like going to bat for OJ Simpson by defending his reckless driving.
wait so you, presumably a socialist, don’t consider censorship by media companies to matter?
Socialists generally believe for-profit anything is fundamentally awful, and at best, tainted. That's not the issue we're talking about here. So these fundamentally dogshit entities propagating moral or social panics is just par for the freaking course.
It really looks like the thesis of that post is that censorship by private entities doesn’t count. Is there a different thesis?
Not OP but I think the thesis is that censorship by private entities isn't a first amendment issue because the constitution only applies to state actors. Similarly the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal test that only applies to the state, because of the power imbalance between individuals and the state. By comparison, in civil trials, the standard is "balance of probabilities".
okey dokey. do we care about the constitution as a source of right/wrong?
No and that wasn't the point either. If I read the post correctly, OP is saying that "innocent before proven guilty" is a standard that only applies to the state. He then mentioned the first amendment as another commonly misinterpreted standard that only applies to the state. You have skipped entirely past the primary point, and latched on to the free speech example for some reason.
EDIT: also I see that OP has already replied to you, so go argue with him instead lol
I'd say it's along the lines of "it's kind of pointless to discuss how good/bad the baby is cause it's definitely going out with the bathwater"
Ah I see what you're saying. I'm interested what OP says, I dunno.
My point is that the first amendment is very clear in only protecting speech from the government and anyone who is citing it in relation to media censorship clearly hasn't read the amendment.
My views on media censorship are to expect it. I dislike it when causes and people I support are censored, but I don't particularly subscribe to the liberal notion that free speech must be protected for anyone from everyone else at all costs. Media is a tool of class war and it should be treated as such.