Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I would say that the consensus is fairly clear.

The act of kneeling itself is 100% protected.

The ability of a team to suspend, cut, etc. a player for kneeling is also protected.

The real question comes with whether Trump's admonishments and threats could somehow end up infringing on the kneeling. That's really the only area that the Constitution really comes into play.
I don't think anyone questioned the ability of team to do whatever with a player. The issue was if you are punishing a player for something that isn't against the rules. The NFL had no such rules against kneeling, so punishing for something that isn't considered officially wrong is a bit of an issue. The other issue of course was trying to add it to the rules without consulting the player's union which is against the CBA. Which is how we ended up with the proposed settlement that of course still didn't appease crap stirrer in chief.

The real question which is why there is an ongoing court case, is if teams in collusion sought to collectively punish an athlete for their protest. Which wasn't against their rules at the time, to avoid any further instances from said athlete.
 
There's a compilation on Youtube of him threatening people and wishing ill on people. Totally a joke, he makes Donald Trump look like Mother Theresa. Can't imagine why he was banned :rolleyes:
 
So you are in favour of this purely because this time it happens to fit your agenda.

Amazing. I hope this comes round to bite you in the ass one day.

Go try posting an opposing opinion on a right wing site and see how far you get. Hotair and redstate don’t even open registration. Hell redstate purged their own writing staff for not being sufficiently supportive of the President.

Townhall doesn’t close off registration but they are quick to ban for opposing views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yngrshr
Haven’t read this yet - but will.
BUT, NPR? I’d be “darned” surprised if they actually agree that this is such.
That’s like Snopes doing an article on whether snopes is accurate or not...........

Update - read it and it’s as I suspected. And worse. Not only manipulating information to counter the argument that leftism is becoming more violent, but suggesting right is actually more violent.
Fact is, most shootings/murders by gun have been committed by people with either anti-right or far-left views. The article chooses to only look at statistics for “domestic-extremism” cases. Which, if you’re familiar with how this is categorized, then you know that info is skewed from the start.
Furthermore, the article blatantly groups anyone “not left leaning” with “neo-nazism.”
Like I said above - snopes verifying whether snopes is legit or not. You think you’d get an accurate answer???
I don't know much about the murder cases, but I can attest that Antifa is violent and should be considered a terrorist organization because that's what their strategy is. They've showed up in my city on numerous occasions to threaten with violence individuals and groups for peacefully expressing views, including the UC Berkeley Republican club (not that I like that club). They've followed through, attacking people and destroying lots of expensive property. They seem to avoid killing since it's not very effective – better to not make yourself a target to be shot on sight, and you can silence people by threatening their property instead.

I know lots of students there. Few condone Antifa, but it was unsettling that many of the brighter people I knew were saying the speeches should be cancelled due to security costs. So, let terrorists win. There were two pretty good South Park episodes about this.

Worst part: UC Berkeley supports all free speech, unlike private universities and UCLA for some reason. They allowed controversial people to speak, and they strove to protect the speakers from Antifa. But there were riots at Milo's speech, and Trump blamed the university, threatening to cut funding.

Also, NPR is garbo. I stopped listening to their radio show years ago, not even because of their slant but because they reported on random stuff like Latino-Asian fusion soup half the time instead of actual news.
 
Last edited:
Go try posting an opposing opinion on a right wing site and see how far you get. Hotair and redstate don’t even open registration. Hell redstate purged their own writing staff for not being sufficiently supportive of the President.

Townhall doesn’t close off registration but they are quick to ban for opposing views.

Interesting that you are inferring that mainstream social media is inherrently left leaning.
 
Plenty of left leaning people doing exactly the same yet they are still allowed on the platform.

I can’t imagine why...

So this is victim mentality, same as what conservatives use to blame people who complain about being treated unfairly based on race, income, etc.

So we're all hypocrites, which cancels it all out, so there's no problem here. It's all even!
 
So this is victim mentality, same as what conservatives use to blame people who complain about being treated unfairly based on race, income, etc.

So we're all hypocrites, which cancels it all out, so there's no problem here. It's all even!

Not a victim at all. Like I have said I don’t even agree with Jones.

I just feel that if a rule should be applied, it should be applied fairly and evenly.

But it isn’t. That’s my problem.
 
Of all the people in favour of this, not one have answered me this:

What happens when it happens to someone you agree with?

Understood. For whatever reason I don't have as much trouble with Apple removing his app as I do Twitter banning him.

But people keep saying that Alex Jones isn't just putting out a message. Allegedly he is actively calling on his audience to harass people, victims of tragedies and such. If that's true, that's not simply exercising free speech anymore, that's something different.

It's along the same lines as why the law draws a distinction between prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is one's beliefs, but discrimination is acting on those beliefs.
 
1zjwnxbctqe11.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfurlin and Huck
Up until today, I have no clude what Infowars or who Alex Jones were...
I know this is a great country where freedom of speech is permitted, but I never knew freedom of hatespeech is allowed too.
Who determines what is hate speech? SJWs seem to label a lot of things by that phrase when they simply don't like the message.

I think you can draw a line between a person saying "I don't like pine trees" vs "hey listeners you should go cut down pine trees because I don't like them."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockworkorange
Understood. For whatever reason I don't have as much trouble with Apple removing his app as I do Twitter banning him.

But people keep saying that Alex Jones isn't just putting out a message. Allegedly he is actively calling on his audience to harass people, victims of tragedies and such. If that's true, that's not simply exercising free speech anymore, that's something different.

It's along the same lines as why the law draws a distinction between prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is one's beliefs, but discrimination is acting on those beliefs.

Discrimination is acting on those beliefs when it suits them. Let’s not forget these kind of accounts remain.

https://twitter.com/WBCSaysRepent
 
Not a victim at all. Like I have said I don’t even agree with Jones.

I just feel that if a rule should be applied, it should be applied fairly and evenly.

But it isn’t. That’s my problem.
Here's the problem. Fine. Ban Jones. Toss him. Whatever.

What's next? Ben Shapiro has said transgenderism is a mental disease per the DSM IV. Is Apple going to decide that is hate speech? Are they going to purge Ben Shapiro's podcast? I bet if enough people on the left, the perpetually aggrieved, complained, they sure would.

Most Muslims are not terrorists but a whole helluva lot of terrorists are Muslim. Disproportionately so when compared to other religions. Is Apple going to say that's hate speech and ban a podcaster or app developer for that?

Will Apple ban a Sarah Jeong type of podcaster or app developer that spews hate toward white people?

Is Apple going to apply their own rules fairly and evenly or are they just going to headhunt for conservative conduct they don't like? You'll notice the banishing from Silicone Valley only goes one way---against those on the right side of the spectrum.

I think most people realize this, but for whatever reason, the left just doesn't want to admit they are comfortable with and encourage the silencing of those they disagree with. It's Maoist and sad. I do kind of expect this from the Euros, because Europe (especially Western Europe) is a cesspool and has long had the thought police telling them what to do, but Americans really ought to know better.
 
Merriam-Webster disagrees.

hate speech
noun
Legal Definition of hate speech
: speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)

Being offended is the easiest thing in the world to claim, and impossible to refute.

That is exactly why Falwell lost his lawsuit against Hustler Magazine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck and Jsameds
Plenty of “hate speech” apps that remains on the platform. The rule isn’t applied evenly.
Be sure to report them to Apple so they can remove them then.

It is mainly right wing opinion that is being suppressed.
That's probably because mainly right wing nut crackers spew hate speech. Quite simple actually. But could you give us some examples of what exactly is being banned?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.