Carolina Panthers Training Camp - Sunday Morning Thoughts and Musings

[bigdavis]

7 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

The odds of you getting banned (again) are significantly higher than the odds of Matt Rhule getting fired.

What the hell are the Mods waiting for?

[bigdavis]

16 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

First Amendment.

I think Americans need to stop being being b**ch assed and calling for mods to ban a guy for what exactly?!

Stop this cancel culture bull!

Ok, Mister.  Up against the wall.  You're next.

[Pup McBarky]

14 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

First Amendment.

I think Americans need to stop being being b**ch assed and calling for mods to ban a guy for what exactly?!

Stop this cancel culture bull!

First amendment applies to government censorship, which this is not. "Cancel culture" began in the 80s with the so-called "Moral Majority" who called for a boycott of Disney because they dared to air Ellen DeGeneres' TV show. So, if you want to blame someone for "cancel culture," start with the religious right.

[1usctrojan]

5 minutes ago, Pup McBarky said:

First amendment applies to government censorship, which this is not. "Cancel culture" began in the 80s with the so-called "Moral Majority" who called for a boycott of Disney because they dared to air Ellen DeGeneres' TV show. So, if you want to blame someone for "cancel culture," start with the religious right.

[rippadonn]

It means you can't get arrested for what you say in a public forum as long as it's not threatening speech.

Why don't you want to extend the same courtesy in any forum based in the USA? Unless it's not.

Some homers on this are worse than that guy. At least he posts and gives an opinion, mostly without bashing anybody.

Others of us on the site are having a decent conversation with that person. When you are attacked you SHOULD defend yourself within reason.

Pissing you knuckleheads off should not be a ban able offense in America. Unless we're not America

[Luciu5]

10 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

It means you can't get arrested for what you say in a public forum as long as it's not threatening speech.

"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."

No, it means Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of speech.  Has nothing to do with forums (or social media) or any other private institution.  You should do some research or take a class on the constitution.  Your interpretation is just that and isn't what the plain text says nor how the courts interpret it.

[rippadonn]

1 minute ago, Luciu5 said:

"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."

No, it means Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of speech.  Has nothing to do with forums (or social media) or any other private institution.  You should do some research or take a class on the constitution.  Your interpretation is just that and isn't what the plain text says nor how the courts interpret it.

Sec 231 applies to forums

[Luciu5]

5 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

Sec 231 applies to forums

Section 231 of what?

I bet your talking about 47 USC 230 - the Communications Decency Act.

Which has nothing to do with free speech on the internet the way you are talking about.  It also does not have anything to do with breaking ToS and getting banned.  It's completely irrelevant to the end user tbh. 

Go read something seriously because you are making yourself look....ignorant.  I'm honestly trying to help you out here.

[rippadonn]

25 minutes ago, Luciu5 said:

Section 231 of what?

I bet your talking about 47 USC 230 - the Communications Decency Act.

Which has nothing to do with free speech on the internet the way you are talking about.  It also does not have anything to do with breaking ToS and getting banned.  It's completely irrelevant to the end user tbh. 

Go read something seriously because you are making yourself look....ignorant.  I'm honestly trying to help you out here.

My bad. I've offended your perfect world. Yes, 230.

That was to protect forum speech SPECIFICALLY. 

You look MORE ignorant for being a total ass trying to make a weak point.

Mine is better: Behave yourself, stop being b**ch assed. Let the man/woman speak.

[Pup McBarky]

6 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

That was to protect forum speech SPECIFICALLY. 

Section 230 of the CDA is to protect social media companies from being held responsible if a user says some dumb poo. It has nothing to say about said company kicking that user to the curb if they decide to do so. 

[MHS831]

Folks--you base your opinions on what news channel you decide to watch to make you feel victimized, smart, or justified.  This is a football forum, so please do not bring your dumbassery in here. 

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

Based on the posting style and username that's probably chuck who's been banned 500 times give or take for everything from death threats to dropping a hard r.  Not like one more is going to make a big difference.

[kungfoodude]

6 hours ago, 1usctrojan said:

Unreal that people don't understand this. Like when I hear people crying because a company drags them to HR for saying some offensive poo. Yo, your speech isn't free at work. It is at home and in the streets.

[SBBlue]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Unreal that people don't understand this. Like when I hear people crying because a company drags them to HR for saying some offensive poo. Yo, your speech isn't free at work. It is at home and in the streets.

Exactly.  Or the people who cry free speech when someone blocks them on twitter.  They can still tweet, I just don't have to look at your crap.