‘The First Amendment Isn’t Absolute’:
Democrat Staffers Wanted Twitter to Censor More
Breitbart Politics,
by
Kristina Wong
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
12/3/2022 3:57:58 AM
House Democrat staffers wanted Twitter to censor more, arguing the “First Amendment isn’t absolute,” according to internal Twitter emails released by Twitter CEO Elon Musk via Matt Taibbi on Friday evening.
The emails related to Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, which broke in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election.
According to the emails, Carl Szabo of research firm Net Choice,had emailed Twitter’s head of Public Polic, Lauren Culbertson, a report after polling 12 congressional staffers — nine Republicans and three Democrats.
Szabo reporoted to Culbertson that the Democrat staffers complained that Twitter “let conservatives muddy the water and make the Biden campaign look corrupt.”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
chumley 12/3/2022 4:36:37 AM (No. 1347847)
If the first amendment isn't absolute, it means nothing at all. As soon as you allow some political stooge to limit it, you have opened the floodgates for even more limiting. Thats just what has happened. The entire Bill Of Rights means nothing because the hacks in government have found so many ways to circumvent every single right in it.
The First Amendment most certainly IS absolute, as are all the others.
17 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 12/3/2022 4:42:20 AM (No. 1347849)
Bull Shite. The 1A reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What on earth does Congress shall make no law mean Congress Critters. There are no exceptions in the language Congress Critters. You guys in Congress cannot abridge the 1st Amendment, period, No Joke. We the people are protected from your asses, period, No Joke.
10 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
mifla 12/3/2022 6:11:32 AM (No. 1347878)
So much for freedom of speech.
Yet, people still vote for Dems.
God help us.
10 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
franq 12/3/2022 6:50:40 AM (No. 1347904)
Leftists have now started at the top of the list. I heard some years ago that the Second Amendment wasn't absolute either. Someday we will all love Big Brother.
3 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Mcscow sailor 12/3/2022 7:21:01 AM (No. 1347928)
We all see this problem…when a foundational bedrock is inconveniently located, there are those who want to chip away at it. It began with the proverbial bite of the apple. We are either going to be a nation of principle…which means expelling laggards from leadership roles, or we will simply sink back in the swamp, unsupported by weakened foundations, to be forgotten.
4 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
bpl40 12/3/2022 8:23:24 AM (No. 1347983)
I don't care how you define it. But the determination of what speech is "unacceptable" or "out of bounds" by an elite political minority is certainly not it. Eliminating shouting "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't involve anyone's opinion.
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
paral04 12/3/2022 9:09:57 AM (No. 1348014)
This is our version of "Animal Farm" except instead of all animals are equal it is "All Amendments are laws but some are less honored than others."
5 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 12/3/2022 9:48:26 AM (No. 1348040)
Yes, it IS ABSOLUTE. This is not in question, has been widely adjudicated over many decades.
Any sort of political speech is absolutely protected.
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 12/3/2022 11:31:09 AM (No. 1348127)
For this country to sustain the Republic must have a constitution it is 'absolute'. The constitution is not suggestions or living to be interpreted by some lame brain like Obama or liberals to their liking. If you cannot agree on one Amendment, then you will not agree on others by your own will. The document applies to all Americans not just a special few, all Americans.
2 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Trump'sCousin 12/3/2022 12:51:53 PM (No. 1348184)
How much more evidence is required before the ultimate punishment for treason is handed down and enforced publically.
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MDConservative 12/3/2022 12:55:56 PM (No. 1348189)
You own a newspaper...The Daily MAGA. You have an op-ed page and Letters to the Editor, as well as general news. You get flooded with anti-MAGA letters, and your syndicates send you anti-MAGA columns. What will you decide to do? Run them? Or, "censor" them. Big ANTIFA rally...how much news space will you devote to the announcement, let alone the actual rally? See, you have no First Amendment obligations as a private media outlet. You have editorial freedom under that same First Amendment.
Twitter and Parler and the others are no different. They have no obligations to carry anything. Even free speech advocate Elon Musk is "censoring" already.
One problem with conservatives is they get wrapped up in their principles. And then the Alinsky crowd calls them out. Rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” No private censorship allowed? Release the bots!
Conservatives have no offense. By definition they are forever on defense "conserving" an ever-shrinking empire based on customs and tradition. They stand athwart history, yelling stop - much like King Canute holding back the tide by his command. The perpetual thinking is that political power or office gives those who possess it the illusion that they control events. That's only true while people comply. Perhaps it is time for an American "Velvet Revolution", using Alinsky's Rule 4, and others, to challenge our government and its perfidy.
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
formerNYer 12/3/2022 1:50:58 PM (No. 1348232)
The first amendment isn't absolute, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, you can't yell bomb on a subway train or bus, you can't threaten someones life. But have all these instances there been a
"Clear and Present Danger"
The crackhead's laptop was only a danger to xiden and the D'rats.
0 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
David Key 12/3/2022 3:06:02 PM (No. 1348260)
Of course they do.
0 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
msjena 12/3/2022 4:03:34 PM (No. 1348282)
#11, it is no answer to say private companies have the right to censor speech. First Amendment principles are a necessary aspect of freedom and independent thought. Big corporations and media that treasure and guard their own First Amendment rights are hypocritical when they deny free speech to those whose ideas they don’t like.
0 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
mifla 12/4/2022 9:22:25 AM (No. 1348661)
And who gets to decide when the first amendment does not apply? The party in power?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)