Crenshaw: 'It's Fundamentally Un-American That Your Hurt Feelings Should Dictate My Free Speech'
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 11. 2021
- At a House Energy Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) spoke about Big Tech.
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
"Those who cannot control their emotions, will try to control other people's behavior."
-Robin Skynner, British Psychiatrist
@Pop Gligor am I missing something? How was he trying it to end free speech?
@Pop Gligor
Liar.
I mean, its the GOP trying to force other people to host speech on their private platforms they don't want to, so who really is the party unable to control their emotions?
@@susanchristenson4641
Don’t worry. You’ve “missed” nothing.
That person is either a liar or an idiot.
@Pop Gligor get OFF the internet🤣
"We're not the Arbitors of truth"
We get it, you are the censors.
Says the party trying to censor CRT
They deem their leftist allies as the arbiters of truth. Then they can claim sensorship is not really sensorship if they are sensoring what somebody else claims is disinformation.
@@dustinbaker8272 because crt is disinformation based on feelings but not facts. LGB.
REMEMBER THOSE POLITICAL FIGURES ENCOURAGING THE HARRASSMENT OF OTHERS THEIR BUILDING BULLIES BETTER PLATFORM ????
MAYBE IT'S TIME THAT THEY HEAR IT FROM OTHERS ? ( PEACEFUL FREE SPEECH ) IF THEY WANT TO DISH IT OUT , MAYBE IT'S TIME TO TAKE IT TO. ????
( WHEN THEY SPEAK OUT OTHERS NEED TO SPEAK BACK . )
TRYING TO SILENCE THE OPPOSITION , FREE SPEECH / ASSEMBLY , THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
@@dustinbaker8272 I’m very left leaning, but CRT is just political propaganda.
“Facebook Fact Checking” is an oxymoron.
One definition of the verb "check" is "to stop or slow down the progress" (of something.) If they're suppressing truth, that fits this definition of "check".
Considering that Facebook is basically a right wing propaganda machine now, there may be something to that.
No, it's a contradiction.
Facebook is not the attributors of truth….. yet they hire 3rd party journalists and call them “fact checkers”. Facts are truth, but Facebook doesn’t take responsibility for truth but promotes “facts”. 🤦🏻♂️
"You can't legally infringe on the first amendment so bully big tech into doing it for you"
Truer words have never been spoken.
Agreed
Which would, in turn, make those companies criminals and open to Americans defending themselves however they saw fit.
Except THEY ARE BIG TECH.... They hide behind other names, but it's the deep State
@@vincentrosethorn4886 There is nothing criminal about FB users agreeing to its Terms and Conditions lol.
The first amendment states that Congress will not create laws that limit free speech, it says nothing about individuals, corporations or social media companies whose terms of use are agreed to before use. If you don't like that way the social media platform is operated, no one is forcing you to use it.
As soon as the term "Hate Speech" was given acceptance, pushing for censorship was the obvious next step.
@Andrew Korvin Coming soon: Thought Crime.
I am too old to change my speech now! I will always speak my mind. Sorry about your luck if you disagree with what I say and get your feelings hurt. You have your day.and I will have mine. It's worked for years!!!!!
like the "hate" crimes as compared to the loving acts of depravity towards one another... lmao
What are you talking about Hate speech is protected by the first amendment
@@gavinfukada3796 OP doesn't seem to be disputing that. Hateful speech should be protected, regardless of how people feel about it. I think OP was saying that when sections of society, especially with social or political power give legitimacy to "Hate speech" that the next obvious step was to start censoring people's speech.
Exactly correct. You can not apply the law to a person's feelings.
Sure you can apply the law 5 Years Of Libel, and Binging to Bear On it 10 Legal firms, with 2,000 Legal staff to Bring 10,000 Legal Briefs to the supreme court! The real story Is the False Narrative that CNN, Manbc and Others in " News Media" Has Used. This is the real story,
People In government, and the Main stream Media using Libel and Out right Lying to Push a False Narrative On people.
Watch what Happens In the Next 12 Months as they all get Pulled in to court.
Yet that's done, without even counting what they have done.
Narcissists don’t feel for anyone but themselves. So when we talk to them about feelings, they become clueless. Those are the ones convincing others that blood and gore on a daily basis vis video games or TV does not have an effect on the young.
That's EXACTLY what they are doing.
@@m.c.1692 No, pay attention, it is the parents that are to pay attention to what their children watches and plays, you call us narcissists yet you fail to be responsible for your own responsibilities, it's not the responsibility of tv shows or gaming companies to raise your children right, that is why they have ratings on movies and games. Only lazy little liberal parents would blame everyone else but them selves for what their children are exposed to, so that means you are the narcissists.
That was impressive. Being able to collect data and at the same time establish his point, all in 5 mins. Just incredible.
Not rely impressive or incredible at all, the only incredible thing is that the bar has been set that low for Congressional behavior
Holding wild animals to a moral standard has been quite interesting.
To be clear Crenshaw and his cronies are the animals.
😆
@Craig Dendy ?
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
― Patrick Henry
Tell that right to a liberal’s face and watch their head explode.
Mmmm
So what you're saying is, you want the government to intervene on a private companies decisions, which by definition is restricting that companies freedom's of choice, in the name of the freedom of the people.
Just trying to clarify.
because when the government tries to do that exact same kind of thing in regards to environmental factors or worker pay, suddenly the same group is saying it is infringing upon their rights because most likely they're the company owners.
@@kamikeserpentail3778 conservatives was to be privileged by laws and not be bound by them, but want to bind others using the same laws.
Fact checkers...she means main stream media representatives
Facebook yes people.
The fact is most fact checkers need to be fact checked themselves. They are in the most part just a propaganda dept of MSM.
Lying liberal mainstream media representatives. There--"fixed" that for you. You're welcome... lol
And also apologist activist types. Pet issues are supported this wat too, I think.
turns out the fact checkers that everyone is all the sudden hearing about were hired by Pfizer. ffs who seen that coming. its like they don't even try.
Is she Kidding ! "...being the arbiters of truth..." is EXACTLY what they are calling themselves, thus, the Term, 'Fact Checkers' ! WTH ?!
Fact checkers = censorship and propaganda
“you can’t legally infringe on the first amendment, you bully big tech into doing it for you”
Tell me you don't understand the first amendment without saying you don't understand the first amendment.
thank God @@Scnottaken is here to bootlick for megacorporations and their ability to censor you
@@iwatchyoutubealot go get your cake somewhere else
@@iwatchyoutubealot explain soecificslly how even one single person is banned from speaking by any of these actions.
You can't, because the weren't. They just aren't being given free broadcasting for those thoughts, but there is no legal barrier to them just setting up their own servers and hosting their own platforms. The only thing holding them back is their massive unearned sense of entitlement to those free broadcasting services provided by others
@@yodaguy6956
they are actually making their own platforms rn, though you guys are tryina shut those down too lol
just be honest, you like censorship because you're a cowardly bootlicker, bet you'll report me for calling you one too
censorship on public forums that receive govt funding seems like stomping on free speech
twitter, google, and facebook all censor and shadowban people all while receiving govt subsidies
So companies would be liable for allowing racist content. I would prefer that individuals be liable for false accusations of racism.
It's not illegal to b racist, and shouldn't b. It's quite disgusting and it's illegal to actually discriminate but, the idea and expression of racism isn't illegal or democrats would b n jail.
There went the BET Network..
@@trentjacobs3957 Exactly. But calling people racist should expose you to liability for slander or defamation.
@@lake9 calling red flag Crenshaw to put the china logo on it ain't racist and calling out facts in history is not racist
@@lake9 The courts don't even view being accused of being a racist or racial supremacist as defamation. The burden is very high and you have to prove the comments directly caused damage. Even then truth is a defense in some states. Defamation law is intentionally hard to win.
Personally I think the false accusations are bullshit but I can see the damage if they were punished harshly. I can see where a news outlet could be subjected to a tighter grip to the truth. Sadly that grip was weakened a lot by the obama administration. So now they can lie and claim "no reasonable jury could view us as news."
The biggest lie about the news is that they were trusted by the population. There used to be thousands of papers and you would find reporters that you could trust and you would compare papers to get the full picture. Objective journalism is a hoax.
Freedom of speech is there so that the unpopular thing can be said. Also, hearing something or an opinion that is different than yours will allow your closed or narrowly focused mind see things from a different perspective. This is also how adults can have a productive discussion rather than someone saying "that hurt my feelings" and declare that the discussion is over, like a child.
Not like a child, like a liberal, Democrat.
@No Body Even the disrespectful and ignorant should have freedom of speech. Watch a congressional hearing, you'll see both.
@@bill944 Touche'. Like no nads nadler, one of the "tribe".
@No Body I have the right to be ignorant (or intelligent)..you can't stop me! I'll tell you what I think too if I have a mind to. If it hurts your feelings...tough shit!
@@morningcoffeebreak7367 Well said! What the book burning ashke"nazis" call ignorance "We, the people WW" call truth that exposes the "tribe" that owns and controls all of the mockingbird msm that lies to the masses daily.
His words are thoughtful. The questions he asked were to the point. The people answering were a disappointment.
Great job Mr. Crenshaw👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸
If the first word from their mouth is "safety", safety is the last thing on their minds.
Those who are willing to give up freedoms for safety deserve neither.
they mean making snowflakes feel safe.
Freedom, by it's very nature, is unsafe. If you want safety, create it for yourself or move to somewhere you think is safe (nowhere is safe).
Equity is the new word -- whatever that means.
@@cactusflower7820 It's a word used to sell Communism, these days.
For the record, I love America. But I absolutely, 100% of every fiber of my being, detest and hate this corrupt government.
Mark Twain put it best. “Love you’re country always, love your government when they deserve it.” I feel the same bro.
Our country is full of Americans that feel exactly like you,including means everybody I know.
By "this corrupt government" do you mean the current one, or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that... When was the last time the government was a place free of corruption and that served the people instead of themselves?
@@pappy374 when im going to be in office in 2024
"Corrupt"
Remember kids, when some one says the issues is " nuanced" that means they have no idea how to address the issue and/or explain it to you
That word is their favorite word to mean I want you to think I'm smarter than you.
There used to be a saying when I was young that went like this, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS will NEVER HURT ME." What HAPPENED to people in this country?... When did everyone become SO SOFT?! If people aren't allowed to speak freely, we will NEVER hear any TRUTH!
There was also an old saying:
"I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"
"good time create weak people" they say
The issue is people confuse what the constitution says about free speech. The government can not restrict what you can say or freedom of expression. But the large guy on the street holding a brick, try to say something about his mom.
"Don't eat the yellow snow"
There has always been a fair sum of soft people , the only thing that changed is the subjects and the amount of exposure it gets due to social media. Making it seem more prevalent than it appears.
Our rights shouldn't end where someone else's "feelings" begin.
Start talkin about second amendment and all you'll be is "feelings".
normal people shouldn't be subject to people like crenshaw's stupidity
@@OOPS2468 His buzz words are used to manipulate his emotionally charged based. He’s a living echo chamber doing literally nothing but distracting the American people from real problems.
@@The-milk-dud-right-wing Self defense is a right
*don't
Couldn't stop laughing after she said fact checkers
WHAT THE LAME STREAM MEDIA FACT CHECKERS
Isn’t Hillary an owner of the company that does fact checking?
@@dittohead7044 I've seen many post that soros owns snopes and others through his shell companies. The irony.
@@dittohead7044 its hillary's friend, margot susca, that owns them. LGB.
Like the prostitution ring/fact checker buddies of the KILLTONS, that is Snopes!!
"They're allowed to make any choice they want to...."
Guy with the eyepatch is the hero of this story
Any attack on free speech is against the Constitution, Bill of Rights and amendments that support the original contract between We the People and all levels of government, regardless of party!
We the People do not consent to releasing our rights to media, platforms, agencies, businesses, banks, hospitals, and any entity.
Yeah? Yell fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire.
Go stand on the street corner yell the N word at everyone and see what happens.
You can say anything you want but you are still liable for what you say the other two commenters are just idiots
@@imtheboss1826 Yelling “fire” and getting people stampeded is incomparable to hurting feelings
Sounds like we all agree we must respect others! I think majority of people respect other cultures religions experiences as it enriches our individual life. What is alarming is the chaos spun off of the evil that does take place,. We stand together for freedom liberties and justice for all. Division empowers a force that is doing the destroying.
No it's not a complicated issue. Only if you don't know the right thing to do, Ms Haugen.
Bravo, it is so simple......Freedom Of Speech, nothing complicated about that, if I don't like what you have to say, oh well, that's too bad, but I will die protecting your right to say it.
When ever a Republican talks about FREE SPEECH they are really saying they want the ability to LIE with impunity. They are constantly claiming they are being censored when they are violating the terms and conditions of use of the website they are posting to. A website that is a private company, free to make its own rules. Dan Crenshaw and other Republicans should focus more on telling the truth instead of posting provably FALSE INFORMANTION.
@@jbarton1541 Perfect, see, you can ramble on about your political views, and even if I don't agree with them, you have every right to it, and to speak it. Isn't freedom of speech awesome? Oh yeah, for the record, they're all full of shit, they're politician.
@@jbarton1541 ur head is most likely where the sun don’t shine so u can freely circle back on that as u will most likely do. Sounds by most of ur comments u r just trying to convince yourself.
Right on truth!🇺🇸
If you provoke another person or cause injury with your words. Your freedoms end there.
“They get to choose anything within a queue to fact check” ah yes the super “independent” choose what they want to sensor.
*censor
Is there evidence that they're not independent?
Or is that just your feeling?
@@Scnottaken it’s not unbiased if you get to go down the list and choose what you want to censor. I’m not claiming I either direction, but it’s human nature to agree and disagree with things and if you let people get a choice their preference will almost always win.
@@iGoldenWax you realize it's not one person and it's almost always an algorithm that makes the list anyway right? And then it's almost always right wing disinformation that gets a pass because people like Cawthorn bitch and moan the few times their bullshit is actually called out.
@@Scnottaken do you have evidence that they’re right wing?
Or is that just your feeling?
When you have to actually confront the people that you are "fact checking" and know that you're purposefully undermining them. "Uh.........it's complicated......"
Yeah...no it's not. They're using third parties so they don't have to take responsibility.
Hmmm
@@uscg1381 and therein lies their own conspiracy theory supporting scapegoats or lame excuses. Smoke and frickin' mirrors. FaceCrook has no intent to be fair to all.
@@uscg1381 Third parties which are utterly bias (if not owned partly by them)
@@rodgillette8066, Fascistbook.
How privileged do you have to be to think you should be able to go through life and never be criticized or disagreed with...?
@No Body The vaccine that doesn't even work? The masks that don't do jack shit?
@No Body your not very well read are you
@No Body Nothing to do with privilege No Body. Simple common sense. Do some study. Masks have been proven to be a good spreader of the virus unless they are of the KN95 quality or better. Single use and cloth masks are next to useless. As for vaccines they do not stop anyone from catching the virus but are effective in reducing hospitalisation/death unless you have severe co-morbidities. Both things are better than nothing but in essence not all that much better yet people froth at the mouth if you do not tell them masks and vaccines will save everyone. Sorry to disappoint you but they save some people but do not save others. Look at cases/deaths under Trump when vaccines were not available most of his presidency and cases/deaths under Biden when vaccines have been available from day 1. Almost the same and it is not because of the unvaccinated who are in the minority today compared to Jan 2021. If masks/vaccines were so good the numbers/deaths should be 20% or less of what they were under Trump.
Sorry to burst your feelings bubble with some facts but that is reality.
@No Body Nice non sequitur, make sure you thank Trump for that vax you love. Project warp speed.
Not to mention, absolutely CLUELESS, with regard to reality... smh
absolutely. i'm so sick of clicking comments on facebook and being told comments were removed. i want to see what was so hurtful that it needed to be removed, but i'll never get to see that. this censorship needs to end.
I agree with you 100%
Stay after them Dan! I’m proud of you!!!
why can't the big tech company's be sued for violating 1st amendment rights? All the fact-check (censoring) nonsense would be obviated if they are allowed to be sued.
Because freedom of speech does not apply to a private enterprise. But I think that needs to be changed
@@goatgoatgoatgoatgoatgoatgoatgo Yes, when those private enterprises product is peoples opinion etc
@@goatgoatgoatgoatgoatgoatgoatgo it's crazy to me that they can build there business with the rights and laws of our country allowing it to happen, then they make back deals with communist countries that are our enemies to enrich themselves and shit on our bill of rights. Simply, they are traitors and need a traitors sentence.
@@alexandersarver3463 then most of the people in office are traitors by your understanding
Just simply quit using it. If everyone quits using it, that moron Zuckerberg will stop making money by "renting"... Yah, that's what he said, they "rent" your info because they cannot sell it, to advertising companies. Those companies don't get rid of your info if you delete your FB account. Let that sink in. Quit using FB, Instagram, WhatsApp. Garbage, all of it.
“The very idea that calling someone a term that they didn’t choose causes them such irreparable harm that legal remedy should be sought rather than regarding it as a form of impoliteness, that legal remedies should be sought including potential violation of hate speech codes is an indication of just how deeply the culture of victimization has sunk into our society.” Jordan Peterson
Ok. Instead of legislation banning such destructive ,hateful speech...how about doing the right thing ,show some decency and control some of your nut bar members and make your party respectable again. You're pandering to Trump's lies while knowing better.
@@jeffneufeld2824 Hahahahahahaha!!!! All the while the crazy haters are on the left.
@@jeffneufeld2824 "instead of legislation banning ... speech"
So we're agreed then? You can suggest anything you want after that. It doesn't mean that suggestion will be followed, but presumably any other suggestion you make wouldn't be against the Constitution. You've already stated that there are other options, so we should all be able to agree NOT to restrict speech
Jake 10175 got to love Jordan Peterson
@@jeffneufeld2824 The democrats should pull their shock troops Antifa and BLM back and not go on the rampage because it's... Tuesday. Don't bother bringing up Jan, 06 either, I believe grandma and other American citizens have been in solitary confinement for about 6 or 7 months now.
He’s absolutely right. I pray that the clowns that want censorship will at least see the error of their ways before it’s too late.
It’s a company with their own policies, they can do what they want. I wish they would straight up just come out and say it: “We are a left leaning company with left ideals”. There’s plenty of other social networks for conservatives to use, use those.
Censor every idiot thing republicans say because they only state idiocy
Just to be clear you are fine with not censoring learning about our countries racist past in the classroom right? I mean censoring what acually happened in our history in regards to slavery, the civil war, the reconstruction, and the civil rights era because white kids might feel bad about themselves is crazy right?
Censor the Censors!
@@theunhappygamer1744 I was taught the bad parts of history but I didn’t have teachers who insisted I had to feel guilty for something I had nothing to do with. Unfortunately that’s not how some of the teachers are teaching it now. As Condeleeza Rice said “There’s no reason to make one child feel bad about himself to make another child feel better about himself.”
Thank u for saying the truth and not some BS
What is Ms H doing there? Wasn’t she just a false whistle blower?
What a crock that was.
Yes she is the whistle blower. I think she knew what she was doing. A set up for more censorship of free speech.
I was wondering how I recognized her. Good point. It seems that was just a PR stunt...surprise, surprise.
No one has the right to judge whether or how speech is to be censored in a free country. It is up to the individual to use critical thinking for himself. That's the beauty of 1A.
Doesn't apply to private companies though?
That's exactly what i thought when in October of last year, these same scum censored the internet for Biden.
Dont use them, they have the right to only allow what they want. Start your own business and you can do whatever you like.
@@somepeoplecanthandlethetruth Sure they do, if they are not receiving anything from teh government. However, their acceptance of section 230 protections make them liable for support of free speech.. much the same way that private universities are required to support free speech if they allow Pell grants for low income students (i.e. allow use of government money).
@@somepeoplecanthandlethetruth this commonly spoken comment is disingenuous. When three companies have a virtual monopoly on the flow of information and unchecked power to control public discourse then we cannot use the excuse "oh well it's their company so freedom of speech doesn't apply." It's a stupid argument at this stage
A thousand likes. This message is so important.
What a man.
Facts don't care about feelings
@The Wraith, our forefathers gave us some awesome tools like the Constitution to deal with the corrupt potato administration. So deal with it Snowflake.
@The Wraith neither does voting according to the constitution care about your feelings. Using mail-in ballots is a violation of constitutional voting processes to undermine the American people. And leftists continue to try to install mail-in voting against the will of the American people.
@The Wraith You realize you're the one who brought Trump into this, right? Do you think about him all night as you hold your orange body pillow? "Oh orange man! You're so good at being bad!"
Feelings don't care about facts. Ask a little child when they have to eat right, go to bed, get off the computer, drop the phone and get ready for school or ask a Democrat or Socialist when they want to pass a spending bill.
@The Wraith how does trump come into it you ever going to get over tds jesus biden won and he's still blaming trump you people need to get a grip whatever happens now is on biden trump is gone
I don't think Facebook and twitter should ever be able to restrict any speech even if its threatening or considered false information. Freedom of speech is all speech
You are correct. Unfortunately, Congress gave them the right to restrict access or remove any information they deem unacceptable, including speech that is protected by the Constitution through 47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act. They have been given full power over content with no liability for their acts through that federal code.
Thing is people still use their service...if people actually would cause an impact on them quit and get off of it, maybe something new. We fight for our freedom what God gave us! We need more people
Making a threat is actually against the law, so I can agree with them removing that. However, the rest of your comment I would agree with.
@@joshsimonton769 oh I agree with you on the law part too.
Amen.
That eyepatch, man... I love it. Seems like a super nice guy but I keep expecting him to stand up and shout All right, I've heard enough! Guards, seize them!"
One neither has to agree with or like what someone else says, but every American has the right to express themselves. Period.
Publicly, yes. On a private social media platform, no.
@@franksilva4175 the Constitution only really dictates the power of the government, but some people think it applies to everything.
So the so called “whistleblower “ is now talking about the company she blew the whistle on in front of Congress. Does anyone else find this odd?
It’s all a fucking circus act. This cyclops talks about freedom but he voted for a bill that will put unvaccinated Americans on a list. Politicians pretend they play for separate teams but in reality it’s us vs those swamp creatures.
@@707romo707 what bill was that I want to show someone else
@@707romo707 Solid point. Which is why I never vote one way or the other or claim to be on one side or the other. They all are snakes when it comes down to it. I agree fully with what he is saying here but the list of unvaccinated is something I am fully against.
@@goatnonagoat your comment brings me a little hope... people are starting to see that republicunt and demoncrat party elites are just players in a big game, and that every other human life is just a pawn to them.
@@scootza1 100%
WOW.
YES.
Your Right!
Kathy Griffin’s bit with bloody head was too.
Yes you took down the hunter biden story. Need we say more?
But there's no evidence that it has any credence. I mean I agree with the sentiment you're trying to get across but the people need to stop using the hunter biden thing as an example because it's not a good one
@@ILoveGrilledCheese
If it was deboonked then why did they hide it? We had the guys laptop for fucks sakes. “No evidence” my ass.
@@ILoveGrilledCheese Its irrelevant whether or not its a "good one". Humans are incapable of not being bias thus the whole idea of independent fact checkers who answer to no one is fundamentally flawed.
@ippos_khloros i wish there was a way i could applaud you that didn't involve stupid emojis. So just know once I'm done typing, i am physically clapping my hands for you.
@ippos_khloros There is a book out by Miranda Devine regarding this. You should read it.
Lucky for them, we no longer live in America...so their feelings can lead to everyone's demise without any accountability!
Not me. I say what I want when I want... America was always an idea to be lived not a piece of land. America will survive if we don't forget what our values are that created it. Speak freely and advocate for American values everywhere you can! Your country needs you!
@Teh Google User lol... butthurt much? Haters gonna hate.
What about the slavery in China, India, Iran and other countries? You’re so against it, should be abolished everywhere right?
And there is no karma.
@Teh Google User lmao, puh-lease define what “Trumpism” is 🤣
I say JUST PUT IT OUT THERE AND LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE!!!!
We need this change ASAP
It's also un-American to push red flag laws
Yeah, someone tell Crenshaw
Exactly! 🦏
Yes, the "claim " of "hurt feelings"... and all the legal implications.... Rep Crenshaw has it exactly right..
@Destination Exile yup 🦏
Facebook is a company. They don't need to bow down to crying conservatives. You don't like it, don't use it. No one owes you anything.
Crenshaw is a rino!! He just sold us out over a vaccine database
@@thelatentsexualfreak wait what he do?
@@phillipejanvier1710 There's actually legal precedence for them being more akin to a public forum. Not to mention that for legal reasons a corporation is an entity just like any other individual and is required to follow the same rules and regulations as everyone else. It's the virtual equivalent of gagging someone because you're afraid they'll speak out against you.
*ABSOLUTELY*
Thank God for people like Good Governor Crenshaw
Nothing should be above the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. It's the high law of the land.
Tech should not be above the high law of the land.
Censor Violence. Not Free speech
My rights don’t end where your feelings begin. Plain and simple.
But Trump is still banned so clearly it does.
@@SchafdoggGTO Never said it was good. Quotes mean nothing unless your going to do something about it.
Agreed, it is a full stop
Weird he's so logical on this and not israel
King is he really logical though? He voted in FAVOR of red flag laws which are basically allowances for the GOV to infringe on your right to speak by infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. This guy is a big government hack and no patriot.
Hit the nail on the head. People have been lying since we learned to communicate. Once upon a time, people said, "Don't believe everything you read/see on TV/the internet." Smart people took that advice, sought multiple sources to confirm/support, and maintained healthy skepticism towards anyone trying to sell them something.
Now, we're all a bunch of dummies who can't think for ourselves, so we need Uncle Sam and the Umbrella Corporation to protect our eyes and ears from anything that could possibly offend.
I have some VERY carefully chosen words for those who want to sensor my free speech. My intent is to offend but to also be clear that I can't hurt you. Sticks and stones and all... remember that??!?!?! OK then, "FUCK YOU."
RIGHT-the fuck-ON! Love the comment!! 👏
Kudos to this gentleman!
Facebook is a "platform" meaning you can post things you want, when they fact check your post, it makes them an "editor". They need their tax status changed to reflect that.
We should be able to sue them for promoting left wing lies
So your saying everyone including our politicians can just say whatever lies they want np???
@@jamespetz3122 it was repubs who originally fought to have those changes so now its going against you want to change it got it! Its always the right who say they are being treated unfairly
@@ivantavarez1852 better all of them than only one side. The people lying can be held accountable when proven lying.
@@ivantavarez1852 not really, just calling out the left
Facts: Big Tech Media is scared of it
Well Big Tech supports the Democrats so that is no surprise.
Rise up America glory to Jesus Christ! Hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah
Nailed it sir respect
“Facebook is not the arbiter of truth… just the oar that steers truth into the stream of the highest bidder!”
I think that would be more appropriate.
Always amazed by this. If your not the arbiter of truth why do you care about "fake" news?
Remember buddy... Its truth over facts whatever tf that means but you know the the the the thing. Ya know.
Let's not forget the 400 million that Zuckerberg sent Biden for his campaign.
What pisses me off is how they want to fact check covid but leave up stuff like breathariens and flat Earth as if there are some Beacon of truth.
Thats questionable on so many levels.
3rd party fact checkers. Oh and they "write their own journalism" to decide what is true or false
......I was almost falling over ..... between the audacity and the laughability..... " fact checkers " ???!!! " and DECIDE what is True or False'..... oh yeah, that's not FLAWED. AT ALL. 🙄🤭😬🤣
Amen!!
That was brilliant.
I agree, break up the big tech just like they did with Ma bell years ago. No one should have control like this..
I'm more interested in their development of censoring than fact-checking. Facebook censored a video I tried to watch today and pass on to others. The person being interviewed in the video was someone who has been before Congress, and he helped the White House out when all this covid stuff started, he and his father suffered from covid, and he's considered an expert in his field, so why sensor this person's interview?
Exactly.
If you want to know who the bad guys are it's the ones you're not allowed to criticize.
Maybe it didn't fit their narrative?lot of that going on
Facebook stinks, do not use.
@@pattyoneill6724, *Fascistbook*
GET OFF FACEBOOK/SOCIAL MEDIA
Facts ! I love this guy!
True! Feelings are subjective rights are for everyone.
WHEN YOU CENSOR ANYBODY YOU DON'T PROVE THEM WRONG OR PROVIDE ANY PROOF THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING MISINFORMATION
YOU ARE ONLY PROVIDING ALL THE PROOF NECESSARY THAT YOU FEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
I got a thirty day ban on FB starting this month because I said the worlds countries should band together and take out Communist China.....guess FB is the CCP’s b!tch🤷🏻♂️🙄
@@DVOPSEC Facebook and at least half the politicians in Washington DC, including the senile corrupt clown currently infesting the White House like a cockroach.
BIG TECH'S INTERN'S ARE BEHAVING AS IF THEY TRULY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE THE F ING THOUGHT POLICE
JUST TELL MARK TO SUCKATURD
THROW TWITTER IN THE
💩TER
PHUCK THESE NARCISSISTIC GARBAGE CCP SPYWARE TECHNOCRATIC MONSTROSITIES.
I HAVE NEVER HAD A FAKEBOOK OR TWATTER ACCOUNT AND I NEVER WILL
I HOPE PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN REPLACE THIS GARBAGE WITH SOMETHING NEW, TOTALLY UNCENSORED AND WHY NOT CALL IT ANTI SOCIAL MEDIA
When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
@@DVOPSEC - I'm convinced that the tech industry is in bed with them to usher in socialism. Never would I have thought so many people in America would be pushing for such a destructive form of government. We still have uncensored internet! We can all look up what that kind of system brings. Truly disheartening.
There has always been racism, bigotry and hate, the difference is that historically people could only spread that hate locally, now they can spread it globally because of social media. We either have to grow thicker skins or take ourselves off social media and live better lives. We can’t tell people what to think or say because where will that end?
Well, I’d say hate was the norm in so many places for so long, there was no need to spread it
People really didn’t start treating one another with respect until VERY recently
The *Government* can't. Find in the first amendment where private citizens, BUSINESSES, and property owners are mentioned as restricted......... You won't be able to because the language states only and specifically *GOVERNMENT* for a reason. This has already been ruled on multiple times. Just not in the favor of the entitled.
@@captainhowdy3906 not that that response was at all related to the comment, but I feel as though if a business has or set of businesses have created a monopoly/oligopoly on the exchange of information, it’s on a just government to protect people’s rights within that organization. More than simply not infringing on these rights themselves. Not to mention that these companies’ policies are written up by politicians who leverage regulations against these companies in exchange for censorship.
@@PointnShootMovies people didn't treat each other with respect until recently. Wtf 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@michaelmcgee2026 uh, yeah. I’ll stand by that 100%. Whatchu know about history?
When I say “recently” I’m referring to the past 100ish years
It’s their platform. Free speech doesn’t apply. They have terms of service.
Yes it does, they are operating in US. It applies, what u think cause its a private company they immune from constitution? educate ur self, dont be a moron
@@GamezGlitchZ just saying the word "Constitution" does not mean you have a valid point, there is absolutely no constitutional right to demand that others broadcast your speech for you. The Constitution only protects against governor imposed limitations on free speech, you have no right to force others to use give up their own right of association and property rights in order to broadcast your own thoughts for free.
@@yodaguy6956
What is the point of a platform who's sole purpose is to let you speak, if it can retract that right at it's own discretion?
Unless you are using it for illegal purposes like declaring bomb threats, there's no justifiable reason for social media sites to behave how they currently do.
@@GamezGlitchZ ya might want to go back to civics 101. The Constitution only applies to the government.
If you try to stand on MY lawn while speechifying you are gonna get run off and trespassed. You can stand in front of city hall all you want. Ever notice almost ALL government buildings have a big square/plaza in front? There is a reason for that -- go speechify all you want there.
@@ricoanderson6626 the point of social media platforms is to make money from advertisements and data mining, not provide some kind of equal open forum. They aren't a public utility whose purpose is to give everyone free broadcasting of their personal beliefs. They are businesses, period, they don't owe anyone ANYTHING. If you don't like them, don't use the free services they provide, it's really that simple.
Closing statement was well said.
When someone says "it's a very complicated and nuanced subject" ...he/she has no intentions of answering a potential "gotcha" question.
#standupforyourfreedom
You mean like Glenn Beck?
Nuance is just another way of saying, "it's a gray area", "it's the thought that counts", or "but I have really good intentions."
All of it is the ends justifying the means, usually by cowards who don't want to solve a problem and would just rather keep the status quo.
@bob bobthebobbobofbobby it's political double speak. If a question is loaded, confront it, call it out.
I'm sorry, Crenshaw doesn't give a hoot or hollar about the bill of rights. It's only important to him when he agrees with it or wants to use it. That is no different than the worst lefty out there.
@bob bobthebobbobofbobby no, it's not enough. It's an excuse for lacking principle and integrity.
I do know the point of a loaded question. The problem is is that you're still playing the game they intended. When hit with a loaded question, call it out.
Say "That's a loaded question. You are trying to manipulate an answer. Would you like to answer if you have stopped beating your spouse yet?"
You expose the attempt, and you put them on the defensive. That is what defeats them.
@bob bobthebobbobofbobby no, no, and thrice again no. You're making excuses and relying on hypotheticals.
All you are doing is playing the game by their rules, and lowering yourself down to their level to do it. It doesn't take an hour to defeat a loaded question and it doesn't take political double speak with non answers either.
The problem still remains though that Dan Crenshaw is a RINO that has no problem violating the bill of rights. Get your nuance from that. You are either a threat to the bill of rights or you safe guard all of it, there is no middle ground.
Isn't it interesting how many people will use "the ends justify the means" even though doing so is wrong? Now here we have someone insisting that it's a good reason to do so, that it's a matter of convenience and saving time....
Instead of cutting through the BS and lies, we have weak and spineless excuses from people whose own actions do not match their words. This is what has been going on for the last 30 years in the GOP, and its why our nation is being destroyed by the left today. Remove your heads from your butts, because reality is knocking. Keep playing the same games and our nation will end.
Crenshaw has it correct! Common sense from texas!
Crenshaw is in favor of red flag laws, pushes climate change hoax, defends RINOS who voted for Bidens infrastructer plan, is a member of the WEF with Alex Soros and that whole clan. Being a vet from Texas doesn't make him good. RINO globalist is more like it.
RINO. It's a shame. But he's a RINO.
@@Blackhall_Manor as soon as I catch him in that I'm going to be all over trolling his one-eyed arse... So far I've only seen people commenting... I haven't seen any evidence of that
@@DoubleDogDare54 I wish I could find a clip... But thus far I have been unable to you catch him in such devious activities... If I do.. I'll be very loud indeed
@@hanuman3527 sorry han I don't know what you mean... I'm saying other posts say he is a rino... If I could find a video showing that I would certainly be pounding on his door
Well said
So many times I've been fact checked and face booked jailes only to read the article and seeing that it proved I was right.
There's a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate
-Tom Macdonald
No, there isn’t, and trying to justify any difference supports the notion that censorship is OK. Both are protected by the constitution. What he SHOULD have said is: “there’s NO SUCH THING as hate speech, there is only speech you hate.”
Hate speech is still protected under freedom of speech. Your feelings don't matter.
"Hate speech" is like "white supremacy" in that they are emotional charged, yet utterly meaningless labels being applied to anything that doesn't enthusiastically agree with the woke narrative. It doesn't even have to disagree with the narrative; you could say, "I don't have a strong opinion either way" or "I think both points of view are valid," and they'll call that hate speech, because you're not exclusively supporting their narrative. Witness the "very fine people" hoax that is STILL being misrepresented as truth.
Why does it that when, my first amendment rights are assaulted by snowflakes that have their feelings hurt because of what I say, yet they want the right to say what ever they want? So much for the left being tolerant and inclusive.
@@burleydad hate speech implys prejudice. Prejudice is a choice. Saying it doesn't exist is a bit dramatic for me but I get the sentiment.
It hurts my feelings to suppress my thoughts and emotions and speech.
I hurts my feelings to get disarmed by the government. I identify as a freedom loving American.
Lol! FB jail was my second home before I ditched them....hurt Zuck's feelings and called his Fact Checkers ignorant...which they are.
Mr. Crenshaw very well said.
Mr Crenshaw, I applaud you for that.
A great place to start is to “STOP USING SOCIAL MEDIA.”
HELLO, thank you.
When i heard twitter was banning photos of people without consent i was really happy about it. I don't use it but it seems alot of politician's use it and nothing ever good comes from that platform ever. I hope they bury it into the ground with authoritarianism weighing it down into oblivion. To many important people think twitter is the pulse of the nation when i heard only 18% of humans use the damn thing. Social media gas turned into a cancer on society and life was better before it was around that is for sure.
@@FRANK45CASTLE well said.
I don't have Facebook, Twitter or Instagram for good reasons. The only "social media" i use are CZcams and Reddit and even that is sometimes too much
Stop Driving Your Cars... that'll show them.
"Facebook is clear, they are not the arbiter's of truth"
Good grief.
They arent clear about that at all when they use "fact checkers" and then say they arent the arbiter or what is fact or isnt, is a retarded statement
fr, people can always stop using FB
@@Thelastdan
They're addicted to it...
I'm thankful that I never started using it
That fact that they’d even say that shows how they think.
I’m the annoying commenter to say I haven’t been on ANY social media for several years now, except for commenting on CZcams lol. It’s quite nice.
Wow professionally said.
That's gotta be the best Pirate I've ever seen!
Remove section 230 and let them rot if they don't allow the 1st Amendment to prosper. It is as simple as that.
IMO, they don't meet the requirements of Section 230 now.
They need to break up these big tech companies. It's time. Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft all need to be broken up. They are monopolies and this is the 1920s all over again. We need to break these up to fix the economy and in turn this will naturally fix our political system. First math then policy. It starts with breaking up these companies forcefully.
Most the stocks are held by one company and the Catholic church making it a monopoly that needs to be broken up
Worry about the oil companies first. Can deal with tech once we're done invading countries and destroying the planet in its name.
Need more people like Crenshaw.
Your feelings are your responsibility- no one else’s.
Oh, fact-checking is difficult. Hillarious
What it really means is it takes a bit of time for the MSM and Big Tech to repeat what they want the facts to become and line up the chorus before most people will digest it as the truth.
The war on misinformation will likely be as successful as the war on drugs...
@@glennjohn3824 Good point.
It's hard for the left to tell the truth.
Nah, you misspelled it. It’s “Hillaryous.” You know, because “she” is allergic to facts. You’d have to be to CHOOSE to defend a grown man who raped a child. People who do that kind of thing don’t even deserve a public defender. I got an idea - wanna defend the public? Get rid of all child rapists!
She just admitted they are a publisher, with Journalist fact checking post!!
@Pop Gligor how’s that for free speech?
Don’t use their product if you don’t like how they manage it.
@Pop Gligor Section 230 provides protection from civil lawsuits for companies that don't censor their platforms. Section 230 was first implemented in order to ensure that telecom companies weren't held liable for speech sent over the phone, because it was impossible to curate everything passing through the phone lines. However, social media platforms are using Section 230 to evade civil suits while still engaging in censorship.
I'm fine with these social media "platforms" being able to restrict access and speech in any way they want, as long as they have their Section 230 protections stripped.
Awe looks like someone got their feelings hurt cause now you can't respond or tags said person
Let's go. 😎👍
Coming from Mr. Red flag law himself.
"We ask Democrats what they want and decide that's the fact."
Here's a thought........... there should be no such thing as "3rd" party fact checking. It is an absurd concept to begin with.
Seriously if you have community standards then it’s counter productive to outsource that to a party not within the community. At that point chances are high community standards are still not being met
It sounds good to people because in theory because third party often implies neutrality. Thats not the case with these "journalists".
Lemme fix your title:
“Big Boss destroys Metal Gear SJW.”
I can't believe I'm fanboying over a politician of all people... but Mr. Crenshaw has at all points that I've observed thus far stood for the side of common sense. If he were to ever run for a more nationwide position, I think he would get my vote.
I grew up with the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" .. And I truly believe that to be true .. I don't give a damn what anyone says about me .. Call me a racist, call me deplorable, call me a redneck ... Why in the hell would I care?
Feelings are NOT terminal unless the only world you live in is made up in your HEAD!
So you won’t care when someone says something about you that gets you fired from your job? You won’t try to sue them?
@@amead78 Through the years there have been many things said about me to employers - thankfully my character is such that it's never gone further than a frank discussion.
@@amead78 Sabrina was talking about words spoken to her directly. You simply changed the scenario to suit your agenda. Don't you think it speaks volumes for the state of affairs in USA that what someone says about you to an employer may result in your sacking whether true or not? And it is the left that use this tactic to attack to great effect in their cancel culture madness.
@@amead78 invariably, there's only one type of person who does that. And it's not the type of person who adheres to the 'sticks and stones' maxim
@@amead78 Someone getting you fired isn't the same as name calling like they were referring to.