Private companies have the right to moderate however they choose. But it sounded like some of what you were saying was refering to the state. The only restriction you should have on your rights are when you violate another person's right. It's the state's sole responsibility to respect and protect people's rights. Not to restrict people's rights.
Thankfully, people in the actual scientific community have figured out that some covid vaccines are actually more harmful than others, and have (in some countries) stopped administering Moderna to young people. Because „science“ is really not as black-and-white.
Protecting someone’s rights automatically restrict other people’s rights. If you want private land property, you must restrict people’s freedom to step on it. This is at a lower level than 101 political science classes, it’s common sense.
Moderna has been linked, after the public release, which means in very high number (hence the danger is pretty rare) to have some more common dangerous effects than others in some category of people, yes.
I was literally saying this, you don't have a right to violate another person's right.
I’m not “claiming” anything. It was confirmed that Rogan and others like him were being shadow banned when the twitter files story broke (you may have missed it since cable news didn’t cover it which surprised literally no one). If that still isn’t enough for you then how about when Zuck flat out admitted that Facebook was contacted by the FBI to suppress anyone sharing the Biden laptop story. I could go on but you get the idea. Or rather, you don’t get the idea which is your whole problem here.
Back to this dumb BS? The first amendment is clear. Claiming I’m lazy is just a dodge. I’m not lazy. I’m just disinterested in Rogan and I’m especially disinterested in the kind of person who would expend this much effort defending him.
I wasn’t in a crowded theater yelling “FIRE!”, I was just in a crowded theater asking loudly the question “FIRE?” to see if there was a fire.
I am not American, so I haven't commented on this before, but since this thread is going in circles about the definition of a word...That isn’t censorship. I “get the idea.” The issue I have is that you’re misusing the term.
Censorship in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'd say passively businesses can censor people. Maybe they can't outright, but consider the TOS of what's allowable and what's not. Those are the rules you agree to when you use the platform. If you are going to spew hate speech and go after people with doxxing and such and it's against the rules, then yeah, the business can censor you or kick you off.
Again, I’m not misusing the term because as I already stated I acknowledge there’s a difference between speech censored by the state and by private companies. Both are disturbing but only one is illegal. I seriously could not make it any more simple than that to clearly prove to you that I understand the law. If you still want to convince yourself otherwise then go right ahead but you look like a damn fool doing so.
Right because that’s so easy to do in this era of extreme inter-corporatist operations that almost exclusively skews to one end of the sociopolitical spectrum. Please 🙄
www.vice.com
Well just this week Joe Rogan had Bret Weinstein on as a guest [again] to promote that HIV not being the cause of AIDS. Perhaps some people see that as comedy? But many others have suffered because of AIDS & HIV would be offended. And if this opinion is taken seriously, it could result in additional infections and deaths. But this is only entertainment and comedy so it shouldn’t be equated to “yelling FIRE in a crowded theater”?
Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein Promote AIDS Denialism to an Audience of Millions
Weinstein repeated discredited theories to Rogan about HIV not being the cause of AIDS, alarming and infuriating public health experts.
I “care too much”?
