This is a high level discussion with a Carnegie Mellon Alumni who works in Law. It discusses and ultimately finds conclusions from today’s events and US Law. I prove that Facebook, Twitter and other social media are bound by The First Ammendment and that it is unconstitutional to censor, shadowban, ban or otherwise manipulate data algorithmically due to people’s political views, sex, race, nationality, age, etc. My friend tried to defend them, but conceded in a way I won’t ruin this for you. If this is your kind of thing, you’ll enjoy it. Otherwise, I warn you, it is long as well as it requires your attention and reasoning.
The use of the character > indicates quoting the other speaker.
Bear with me, it opens slow with me trying to get a read on a friend I haven’t talked with in years, but eventually gets extremely deep analyzing law and how law changes over time due to interpretation, but even then it concludes with my extremely educated lawyer friend relenting when he learns that Town Halls could be privately owned.
Jim on a discussion platform:
May 13,2022
The entire leftist liberal party is just like Joe Biden, Godless. And those who don’t have Jesus have no moral compass. In Carnegie Mellon, the world’s leading philosophers concluded that the end of atheism is,”Since nothing make sense and we’ll die soon, have as much pleasure as possible and do anything you want as long as you don’t get caught. If you might get caught, make sure you can accept the punishment whether it be jail, fine or other.” This is the major reason I was depressed at college for I want to be moral and helping everyone around me in love… They told me that is foolish… They push atheism hard on everyone in hopes people just accept others who have no morals. Now those who know they have no morals, STILL WANT TO BE KNOWN AS GOOD, so they will lie and pretend to be good when people are looking. This is known as the modern humanistic atheist movement. Because once you’re known as good, you get away with more, it’s like a reverse of a criminal track record. Anyway, Biden wants to be known as good as he says he’s a catholic yet does very evil things like being a racist, and side with the terrorists. Those who have no Jesus will do ANYTHING they want, even stuff that hurts their fellow man as long as it makes them happy, wealthy or powerful. To conclude, I used to be democrat. Democrats used to be for the little guy, the farmer, the coal miner, the union guy. Now democrats are for abortion like it is awesome. The murder of a baby is the very definition of being against the little guy. This is why I can not vote for democrats anymore. Tho I an Protestant, I just hit the line item: Straight ticket republican like 20+ million other Catholics who are also single item voters against abortion. Remove that abortion from the platform and then I’ll see what you have, but I know the left is messed up in so so many other ways, and the chickens came home to roost this administration… But the chickens also ran out Afghanistan and want to bring Afghanistan in our borders by importing terrorists and calling them refugees. Now we outlawed free speech last month with the Orwellian disinformation, there won’t be many places for chickens to run and hide if we let the liberals finish destroying America at behest of the terrorists and communist enemies they take bribes from.
Friend of Jim:
Jim, you know I love you, but come on, this is full of inaccuracies. I got my MA in philosophy at CMU, so I spent quite a lot of time in the department, not only taking classes, but also TAing (including ethics) and teaching (including Philosophy of Religion). I never once heard anyone there say that.
And no one has outlawed free speech. You are still completely free to say whatever you want.
Jim:
>And no one has outlawed free speech.” You are still completely free to say whatever you want.”
For someone who is an educated mind that I used to respect, do you pay attention to current events? After Twitter got free of censorship from Elon Buying it out, Biden immediately made censorship a national office in the DHS. We have a Ministry of Truth now in the USA. Freedom of speech died that day. I remember you when you actually had a head on your shoulders. I remember you liking Shindler’s List in Highschool, but you don’t see the signs of the times.
Friend, different teachers teach different things. Atheistic Nihilism was a rampant push from the students and professors I talked to. You’re trying to tell me I’m a liar and I never heard what I heard. You are trying to tell me that I wasn’t depressed because of it. Please don’t be lame. News headline,”Man who didn’t get cancer says cancer ain’t real.”
I’m surprised Friend, that you don’t remember WW2. The NOT SAYS got into power by spying on everyone, then censoring those they hate “Christians and Jews”, then set up mandates and papers please. Yet you cannot see that Big Tech spies on everyone, that Twitter/FB/Youtube/Amazon algorithmically censor Christians and Jew out of hate, then countries even USA/Canada pushed mandates you can’t buy at grocery stores unless you show papers please of vax. Look at Shanghai now, CCP Xi has the entire city with citizens locked in their houses as it draws international criticism. And I have proof of censorship on all these platforms because I’m Christian. The same people who won a lawsuit vs Blizzard are in active talks with me setting up a lawsuit vs Linkedin because I was well mannered talking about exclusion in tech by Silicon Valley Liberals who will not hire Christians. I don’t know where it will go since having a Cali liberal jury won’t get me far, but I have a slam dunk case with video evidence and talking with a head lawyer there. Watch the last post I made on Linkedin where I got banned: https://rumble.com/vpe3in-banned-on-linkedin-for-complaining-about-liberal-discrimination-in-tech-aga.html I can give you articles about many personal instances where I was censored just for being Christian: https://fatherspiritson.com/2021/02/censorship-on-social-media-ii/ & https://fatherspiritson.com/2018/08/censorship-on-social-media/ I think maybe you’re not in the thick of things, or maybe you’re not Christian, because you’d be seeing the incredible hate the left has for us or the cover up by censorship they’re using to hide form everyone. The left is breaking 1960s civil rights all day long by denying people of religion use of their service… Still, you used to be not just smart, but sly like a fox, so I’m surprised you aren’t paying attention these days.
Friend of Jim:
Hey Jim — I think we should be able to have a civil conversation if we disagree with each other. I find it pretty sad that I became someone that you “used to respect” simply for challenging you for saying something that I view to be inaccurate. But you’re free to feel however you want of course.
In your original message, you said that the “world’s leading philosophers” at CMU said certain things. I took that to mean the faculty of the philosophy department. In your response though you say that you heard this from “students”. I have no doubt that some random student could have said that, but I do not consider undergraduate students to be the world’s leading philosophers. 
I’m aware of the board that Biden created. What I don’t see though is how that prevents you from exercising your free speech rights. I’m willing to listen to an argument you have on this, but my understanding (as a lawyer who has studied constitutional law) is that this in no way affects your first amendment rights.
And finally, with respect, I have no idea what your WW2 comment has to do with what I said. Where do you get that I “cannot see that Big Tech spies on everyone” and how would that be relevant to what I said?
May 14, 2022, 2:40 PM
Jim:
Friend, you said a lot of things there, and as a debate student, you understand how you can only address one at a time. You’ve already addressed and resolved the lack of respect by engaging me in a private chat. The disrespect was had by coming on my thread and saying I’m absolutely wrong, while you yourself was not aware of information I am knowledgeable of, that which I will share with you. Thank you very much Friend. I lost a few friends from college who were supposedly smart people, but got so politically minded that they started telling me how awesome race riots were and how America would be destroyed… Lots of people are losing their collective minds these days. These people were genius scientists and old gamers. So I’m glad you still have a head on your should to debate. There is no respect lost at this moment. It is all regained because Thank God, you’re a rational, logical thinker who wants to understand the world around him. Love you Friend, lets begin.
The first topic we’ll explain is your confusion to how rampant censorship of Christians and Jews bares any relationship to WW2, and mind you, this is the only reason I post politics today. I think politics sucks, its designed to make you argue, so grass roots doesn’t happen, and while we argue, politicians do whatever the heck they’re bribed to do and tell us it is good for us.
I’ve been non stop censored on most social media Google/Apple/Facebook/Twitter/Youtube/Kongregate/Reddit, you name it. Sometimes they come right out and say,”We don’t like your kind.” Other times they say,”We can discriminate because you discriminated first.” Other times it is just noticing I’m shadow banned, or people coming off as mean out the gate and banning me from forums I said nothing offensive in. I have proof of this discrimination, like I said I have a pending lawsuit vs Linkedin. Linkedin banned me from their site because I was posting,”Hey, since we discovered that liberal Silicon Valley types hate Christians online and censor them, I think they discriminate in hiring.” I literally got banned off Linkedin 2x, just because I was raising awareness of Christian and Jewish discrimination in tech hiring. I’m going to continue assuming you believe I have mounds of proof that Christians and Jews are being censored. You can challenge this premise, and I will bring dozens of cold hard proof to enlighten you if you’re unaware.
So the way history plays out, its cyclical. They use the same tactics as they did in the past. In this case, mass spying on everyone around 2000, code name Carnivore. You remember that right? If not we can get the news. They rolled it out right when WW2 generation was dead and dying so they could not protest. Modern day Germany has a law against spying on its citizens because it always always ends up in Nazism The USA proudly said,”We’re too good for that to happen. We gotta get rid of drug dealers and terrorists with pervasive spying.” 22 years later drug dealers and terrorism is worse than then, right? So that didn’t work. 2018 after the Zuckerberg trials, Congress gave the ability to unconstitutionally algorithmically censor anyone to stop hate speech, but it was abused immediately with them just shutting down hundreds of millions of tweets of Christians and Jews. Remember at the time, Twitter’s key stake holder was Saudi who hate Christians and Jews. Iranians and Saudi culture believe it is okay to silence speech of those they don’t like… We used to Rock the Casbah, but now the Casbah is cracking down on free speech. It says volumes when many republican candidates are banned off twitter, but Taliban actively recruits. I have pages where they fudge my numbers, make it so my stuff isn’t seen before. It is a fact that Christians and Jews are being censored. Are you aware of this?
When Elon Musk bought twitter, suddenly some republicans were getting 20x as many followers a day, people were being seen. I’m still censored pretty hard, but it was starting to open to free speech of what can be said. Twitter was suppressing factual information to support spin… They even demonized the National Institute of Health . gov when independent peer reviewed scientists were finding counter results about masks not restricting oxygen and Covid vax’s safety. NIH has been used by the AMA for like 140 years! Now suddenly they’re not credible? I can give many more examples… So Elon Musk buying twitter gave us hope that information would no longer be suppressed. Then comes the bomb of Biden’s Ministry of Truth.
April 25,2022 was the death of free speech as they moved censorship of Christians and Jews from a corporate level to a national level… The only way a president makes such an unpopular move as to destroy free speech is if he has done a LOT of bad things.
A good look at this is a tweet that puts it in perspective: Joseph Goebbels had a Ministry of Truth. Joseph Stalin had a Ministry of Truth. Joseph Biden has a Ministry of Truth.
The national government should not be in the business of picking and choosing who gets to talk and who doesn’t. This is political suppression and is very valid. I could continue on many other or the topics you have, but to move to many topics before one topic is resolved is bad debate form.
I’ll allow you to question me on the facts, premises, and logical ends by which they lead on these first. I am aware I did not talk about the logical end of Nihilism that professors/students concluded. We can resolve that later. I also have not addressed the current state of law as pertains to the 1960s civil rights act and First Amendment rights. We can address those two concerns of yours after we resolve the current ones I am addressing here. I’ve done a lot of debate with a lot of people over the years. I’ve found that lots of people do not share the same knowledge base, and where there is missing knowledge, incorrect facts, incorrect assumptions and incorrect logic, you must go at a step by step pace, even with advanced educated scholars such as yourself or I. So please, know that I am not ignoring your other concerns. I want to address them now, but they’d cloud our focus on the steps and premises at hand. Do you agree that Christians and Jews are censored en mass online, millions and hundreds of millions of posts? I can give you dozens of examples, hundreds maybe, happens non stop to me even personally. Do you see the parallels in Nazi ww2 Germany in spying on everyone, censoring Christians and Jews, then doing totalitarian mandates and papers please? You addressed that you did not originally. Most people do not know their history, so they repeat it. But there are people who know their history but do not have their eyes open to current events and I believe this is what is going on in your case. Let me know about these or other concerns. We’ll try and address the situations one at a time and this correspondence could fill a book if we need to go. I value you dearly as a friend. To me it seems like the younger I was when I met my friends, the better friend they were.
Friend of Jim:
Thanks for the response, buddy, and I’m happy to take these issues one at a time. I know that you’ve said before that you’ve been blocked on Twitter and had your posts blocked or deleted. I have no reason to believe that’s not true. But I’ll share a couple of observations and thoughts with you: 1. I seem to see everything that you post on Facebook, and have for a while, so it doesn’t seem to be a problem here at least. And there are plenty of Christians who post messages of love on Twitter and Facebook, and they do not seem to be blocked or censored. 2. Regardless though, this has nothing to do with a constitutional free speech perspective (which is how I look at things when people say their rights to free speech are being abridged). Twitter is not the government. Facebook is not the government. So if either kicks you off or blocks you, your constitutional rights haven’t been infringed. Now whether or not I think that’s appropriate for them to do so is another thing. I think they should allow anyone to post whatever they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone, and I hope Musk actually does buy Twitter and allows that. But that is a private business decision — you don’t have a constitutional right to post on Twitter. Along these same lines, I’m curious how you feel about the fact that Musk is trying to buy Twitter with the backing of the Qataris and the Saudi royal family. Now, to the second point about Biden’s disinformation board. You still haven’t explained why you think this is going to “destroy free speech”. Are they censoring people? No. Are they stopping people from giving their views? No. I agree with you that “the national government should not be in the business of picking and choosing who gets to talk and who doesn’t.” Thankfully, that isn’t what they’re doing.
Jim:
>I seem to see everything that you post on Facebook, and have for a while, so it doesn’t seem to be a problem here at least. And there are plenty of Christians who post messages of love on Twitter and Facebook, and they do not seem to be blocked or censored.
{Logical addendum looking at his quote 8/26/22} ‘he claims to see everything I posted, but he would not have known if I posted something that is censored’ {end logical addendum}
Ok, so lets cover this. I’m surprised you’re not aware of current events. Congress has proved this is true, and I have experienced it factually in personal experience. Lets see if I can dig up archives of proof while I get you Zuckerberg admitting that Facebook censors Christians then lying to congress immediately after
Its okay to be wrong my man, you just don’t know what’s going on and I’m here to inform you.
>2. Regardless though, this has nothing to do with a constitutional free speech
Once again you’re wrong, and you’re educated. I’m not sure how you can’t see that when the government can censor anything you say on any website, any text message, that your free speech is not impacted.
Facebook/Twitter/And any open platform are open town halls which are protected by Free Speech.
Now lawyers will say Ebay is not an auction site, Paypal is not a bank and Uber is not a taxi company so the laws do not apply to them.
Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/Youtube and the like were trying that crap with free speech, and technically as you say it was flying, but it is not the correct interpretation.
And since we know they’re targeting Christians and Jews, that violates the 1960s civil rights act.
If Starbucks said,”Yo, no Jews allowed to use us.” They’d be shut down the day before.
But private companies online Twitter/Facebook are doing that RIGHT NOW. And I’m sorry you were unaware of the facts like Twitter & Facebook censoring Jews and Christians…. So that you would not understand how this all is going on… But that is the nature of censorship, not everyone gets to know what’s going on.
In fact the Mainstream TV news covers this up by spin & propaganda. The American people accepted the lie that censorship is acceptable… And a lie that compounds that,”Nothing goes on in secret that the news doesn’t tell you about.” They’re pushing conspiracy theorists as crazy folk when conspiracies happen all through the history books. Heck tobacco was a conspiracy in recent times that proved to be true. When they censor everyone and get people to believe nothing goes on in secret they don’t tell you about, they get to push narratives and agendas.
In conclusion of this, there’s two types of online forums: A public open town hall forum open to all. If you claim that, it applies to free speech and you can’t censor your political opponents just because you feel like it because it is supposed to be open to all. And obviously as a US company, they have to abide by 1960s civil rights and can’t just ban/censor Jews, blacks or women off their site just because they hate then.
And then there is the second online forum: A private chat room, akin to having a house. Like a twitch room, or a chat room, or a party chat room… People who run these, can kick people out for any reason like if people visited their property in person. It’s not difficult, its plain to see, but you know how the law goes… What is codified and such is improper, uber is a taxi company and taxi laws should apply to it. Ebay is an auction site and auction rules should be applied to it, Facebook is a public town hall and free speech should be enforced if not 1960s civil rights acts. But far worse than that, we have censorship on a national level as of April 2022. Free speech is dead man.
I have said my peace on: Addressing the current state of law as pertains to the 1960s civil rights act and First Amendment rights. We could still talk about the logical end of Nihilism from our previous unresolved issues. And of course, if you want to drill down into anything I say, we can. It is just the peak of a mountain that is forged on a foundation of truth that goes deep. I have tons of videos/examples/screenshots, schooling, etc that can help you get up to speed on anything you do not understand and need help on. From your words, you seemed unaware that twitter censored Christians and Jews until I brought it up. Then you seemed apprehensive on Facebook also doing it, which I proved by Mark Zuckerberg’s own words that he knows it is happening… So censorship of Christians and Jews happens all throughout tech. I know I’m algorithmically suppressed on youtube. On reddit (more of a chat room format, but dominated by liberals, I get banned on many forums even not saying anything controversial because I have so many enemies who say,”Jim’s a Christian” to the moderators) and they ban me,”We don’t like your kind here.” I bring this up, not because I’m trying to argue personal chat rooms which get large start to become a public town hall type of format, which is something to reason later, but because liberals freaking hate Christians, like straight up hate. And not all liberals hate us that bad, but the liberals who don’t hate us will easily tolerate those who flaming hate Christians at work places. So when I apply to work, and they google me online, see I stand for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, guy who says everyone should love each other, they hate me. I actually don’t even get interviews because of this. I won’t bring it up at work and such, but they hate Christians so much, they don’t want us talking(as proved here, and I could prove further if you want), but they also don’t want us working with them. Being a Christian is hard mode in life, and if I had the choice after college of finding out God is real and not getting a job or having a cushy job, enough money to date/ raise a family, and maybe take a vacation once in a while… I’d still choose to know Jesus Christ and be seen as the world’s trash for this fallen world does not last forever, our bodies in this life are mortal, but our spirit is eternal.
Friend of Jim:
Jim, buddy, if I could make a general suggestions first, then I’ll get into the meat of the discussion. Again, these are just suggestions, so ignore them as you like: 1. I’d suggest that you should converse without recourse to ad hominems. You can try to point out where you think I’m wrong without trying to disparage me by saying “I’m surprised that you aren’t aware of current events”, that I “don’t know what’s going on.” I’m not personally offended, but I think you’ll find it easier to discuss with others if you avoid these kind of comments. 2. A lot of times above you are trying to prove I was wrong about something I didn’t say — kind of like a straw man For example, you claim that I said that I was “unaware of the facts like Twitter & Facebook censoring Jews and Christians”, when in fact I said no such thing. What I actually said was that “I have no reason to believe that [what you said about your posts being blocked] is not true,” but noted generally that you and others still seem free to post on Facebook without censorship. 3. I think you could also go a bit easier on the us vs. them worldview. I’m a liberal. I don’t hate you or hate Christians Most of my friends are liberal (and a good deal also Christian), and they do not hate Christians. I’d suggest that you may be over-generalizing on the basis of how you’ve been treated by certain individuals. I’m not doubting how you’ve been treated; I’m just saying don’t judge a 100 million people by the 100 that yell the loudest. I also note that you’ve been posting a whole lot of anti-liberal posts, not only arguing against political theories but disparaging liberals in general. Those kinds of posts invite the crazies on the liberal side to respond with harsh invective. Now, to the meat of the argument: 1. I’m not sure why you believe that Twitter and Facebook are “open town halls which are protected by free speech.” That just simply isn’t true. The first amendment applies to what the government can do. It does not apply to private companies. It does not matter if the private company says that they are setting up a forum open to all. Saying that does not magically make them constrained by the 1st amendment of the constitution. This is not fancy lawyering, this is just the plain text of the Constitution, which says “CONGRESS shall make no law…” 2. You also seem to be conflating “the government” and Facebook/Twitter in your responses. As above, you talk about Facebook and Twitter censorship and then claim that “the government can censor anything you say on any website, any text message.” If the government were doing this, then this would be a violation of free speech, but they are not. Facebook != government. 3. I agree with you that the civil rights laws prohibit Twitter and Facebook from discriminating against people on the basis of their religion and politics. But that is separate from the free speech question. (In short, Facebook could unlawfully discriminate against you (which you could sue them for), but it wouldn’t be on the grounds that your rights to free speech were violated). And anyway, as you noted above, we need to address things one at a time to stay focused, so let’s shelve civil rights discrimination laws and stay focused on free speech for the time being. (We can revisit the other later if you’d like.) 3. Now, although I’m happy to discuss Facebook and Twitter with you, this is all a sideshow to the original point that we were discussing, which is that the formation of Biden’s disinformation board has brought about the end of free speech. You haven’t addressed why you think that this board will prevent you from exercising your free speech rights. From what I have seen, there is absolutely nothing to make me believe that would be the case. Happy to keep discussing this, or move on atheism morality. Your call buddy. Maybe we can move it over to email though (you can hit me up at removedEmailofFriend@com) so it’s easier to read and respond, but happy to do it here if you prefer.
You also didn’t address my point about Musk and the Qataris/Saudis. I’m interested where you stand on that, given that you seem very pro-Musk but very anti-Saudi.
Jim:
I didn’t write this in offensive charged manner, more of a plea. Let me get back to you after I do church. I am very busy, launching like 5 major titles this month one of which an mmo, check out www.starfightergeneral.com
May 15, 2022, 4:34 PM
Friend of Jim:
Take your time, Jim, no rush.
Jim:
I fired an email to you like 3 pm after I did some yard work n stuff
Jim’s Email:
> I’d suggest that you should converse without recourse to ad hominems. You can try to point out where you think I’m wrong without trying to disparage me by saying “I’m surprised that you aren’t aware of current events”
>Jim, buddy,
I meant no disparagement. I’m sorry you assumed this. We all don’t know things others do. A shipyard mechanic will know things about fixing ships that a film maker doesn’t. Uneducated people often have great knowledge unbeknownst to the most renown scholar in that field. Even the Pope doesn’t know wisdom found in the Bible that a plumber or middle manager might know. The first steps of proper discourse is to always find gaps in the other’s knowledge and fill them with facts. I assumed you’d do the same with me. Then each brick built upon brick we could challenge, reason and understand, throwing out materials not fit to build upon. This was not meant to put you down.
Proverbs 12:1 Any who love knowledge want to be told when they are wrong. It is stupid to hate being corrected.
If you refuse to learn, you are hurting yourself. If you accept correction, you will become wiser.
I see the bait the ruling political parties have in for division, and this is why you approached me. They can’t rule with corruption unless they divide. Let’s beat the bad guys by changing their division attempt into a unison of friends. I have great feelings and emotions for the whole crew of friends I had in high school I miss you TONS! My best times in my life are when we hang out together once every 3 years or so!
I want to tell you something that’s been deep on my mind about you since around 94-95. Do you remember when you made a list of characters about 2-3 pages long in high school and just made them eccentric? Then you figured out of how eccentric they were, you could make a play/story/book from them? In that moment, you made me think and I haven’t stopped thinking about it til about 7 years ago when I discovered something superior to make plots, and you are responsible for making me thinking. Yeah, I know, the world can blame game you for my bad scripts now! Hah, no seriously, listen to this.
So when you go about life, write down all the funny moments. If something is original enough to make you laugh, write it down. If you get a creative thought, write it down. I email myself in cell phone at the moment. We cannot force being creative, but we can choose not to collect the rain of creativity in buckets thus forget it. I find in life that as things are tough, my memories of good times give me joy. But better yet, if you get 200-500 of these funny events, thoughtful events, weird and trippy ideas, or just something that makes you go WOW(Seinfeld moments): Boom! you have a few movie scripts, a video game plot, you could write a book that people would read. For what you do is start chaining about 100 of them together, and if you do it poorly, you have The Hangover Part 9. But if you do it well, you have an award winning masterpiece. I know how insanely creative you are. I’m proud to know you for that reason alone, besides you being nice and fun to chill with. I hope to God you pause and write stuff like that down, it doesn’t lessen your appreciation for the moment much. If you didn’t before, start now, txt yourself crib notes or email yourself.
Speaking of creativity, it only stems from smart people. Just like jokes on the fly, require intelligence, because you’re thinking a million related things to connect them. As adults who are cultured, we’re at our all time creativity peak for about 15 years now until Alzheimer’s kicks in hard. John Cleese once wrote a documentary on how to induce creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g . As we stated above, making a movie around funny impactful events is better than taking an idea and sitting down forcing it to be entertaining. You need to write a movie script “1700s Man goes west through uncharted territory, what happens?” Well if you force it, it’d become tropey unless you knew the tropes, then you don’t have much less to work with. But say you have like 400 “Seinfeld episode” interactions in real life, you could then make it deliberately troped out, but put in 100-250 of those Seinfeld moments over top, it’d be a hit! Look at Police Academies, Airplane or Naked Gun, lots of funny jokes, but some of it is forced unfunny fill you have to sit through. Anyway, smart people are creative, and that’s how hanging out with em is fun, they think of jokes on the fly.
This is why I like hanging out with you guys. You’re all sm-rt. You tell great jokes. And you don’t like society tell you to conform. I’m looking at getting Chuck hired for Starfighter General as a Game Master for it once it gets rolling cuz I trust him. I trust you too. I want to get you guys paid HARD, like 100k/month+ as these games often make 10-100 mil a month. Game masters and creative minds like yourselves are a gem, and I can trust younz.
I kinda want to dodge the political talk unless you really really really want to go there. I know a lot. You’ve seen the liberal theater folk side, but I am not sure you’re aware of the Christian exclusion side of it. I have seen them both.
Story Time!
Disconnect yourself from pity partying Jim for a moment and read the rest as watching Jim get tempest tossed and kinda laugh I have resolve to carry on: -Redacted case of lots of bad stuff going on in my life- Look, I’ll get by, right now I have like a broken ankle now and a degenerative bad back diagnosed from moving all the tons of stuff around instead of living a normal life of production… I will get by, I’m a fighter and one who prays, don’t worry about me, but I know first hand what it is like to be denied even a single chance to get a career started for no fault of my own. I’d do it all again in a heart beat to stand for Jesus who took far worse on the cross.
I praise you because you are to be feared; all you do is strange and wonderful. I know it with all my heart.
Reality is indeed more strange than fiction…
If you want to really talk politics, you have to be open that some things you think you know, you don’t. Just like I’m open for you to bring things up that I don’t know. I have first hand proof of a lot of the things I’m presenting. They have great parallel from the lessons learned in Problems of Democracy. Spiritually speaking: Donald Strejeck was the one who got me on the Internet in 1994, and I see that as important. I freaking hate politics. I know they cause division. I’ve stayed out of it all my life, but today the people in charge of the USA are taking bribes from China and Iran. We have our elected officials deliberately trying to destroy America and it’s never been like this before, so I speak out when I never really wanted to voice anything about politics before. Our politicians have always been bribed since the 1800s, but today they want to destroy America, and they’ll probably do it. I might not be able to stop America from being destroyed, but lets stay friends. Heck, lets email each other once every so often, tell each other funny Seinfeld moments in life hour our creativity buckets are being filled. I’d love to hear from you and Chuck… Younz kinda fell off the radar in College and I missed you guys ever since.
,Jim
Friend,
No “hey back”, no “We cool Jim”? No,”Here’s some some fun ideas that happened in the past 25 years?”
Man, I’d even accept talking politics again. I liked hearing from you.
100% when Nazi Germany had a Ministry of Truth freedom of speech was gone right? Some people could talk, but not all. Same goes for America now, but it takes time to cook the frog and also institute the technology to ensure the power gets rooted. That’s why we should cry foul on censorship and why I won’t stop talking about censorship now. If you don’t talk about censorship when it rears its ugly head, you won’t be able to talk about it later.
Maybe you’re just upset or something… I saw it in the tone of your texting and you taking offense to me just giving basic information. Is there a way we can communicate that does not upset you? Cuz if you wrote off a high school educated friend because he knows things you do not, the diversionary powers out to control have won vs you. And if you forgot politics is out to divide so they can control, I’ll guess I’ll exit this party with some George Carlin in front of a White House press conference eloquently using the English language to explain what we all knew then but seemed to forget now: Politicians are corrupt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc0ZHsoHAlE&t=638s
er national press conference, it’s a funny watch. You’d appreciate it if you still have a sense of humor.
Friend of Jim:
Jim — I’ve been busy with work so I haven’t had time to respond yet. I will. In the meantime, don’t assume that I “wrote off a high school educated friend because he knows things you do not.” I’m not sure what you are talking about regarding the tone of my texts or my “taking offense.” Don’t go looking to pick a fight where none exists.
With respect to the suggestion I gave you, and your response to it, believe me, I know there are many things that I do not know, and I am always happy to learn when I do not. But what we were talking about didn’t fall into that category. I’m not offended; I find it odd that you feel the need to repeat several times that I don’t know something when you have no reason to believe that’s the case.
In the meantime, we’re cool.
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
Friend,
Thanks for getting back to me.
Thanks for clarification too. Ya, I thought ya dissed me by being eager to talk on FB and not get back to me on email.
Remember, I always wanted to stay in touch since high school I had trouble finding your info , told your brow many times for ya to get to me, and even Haven nights… So its been like 25 years of me wanting to get in touch with ya, and the first reach out from you is some dubious political argument, so bare with me. Maybe some verbage along “disparage” and the likes got me confused.
Let’s take ‘er slow. Do you see wisdom in addressing just one line item before moving on to others? I’ve done this rodeo before, and the people I did it with were supposed to be educated, but let their tribal mind and the desire to be right cloud it so the discussion deliberately shifted topics randomly like sand in the eyes cheap tactics. I find the only way to find high truths is built upon bricks of truth. This cannot be obtained unless both parties are mutually satisfied, and shifting topics adds unnecessary complexity. I have no preference which topic we begin with tho, when you’re ready, fire one over, and a latent time table of correspondence may develop.
Take care friend,
Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
Hey Jim,
I’m really sorry to hear about everything that you’ve had to go through recently, with your grandma passing, the back and ankle problems, the fight with mold, the difficulties with family, etc. Dude, that just plain sucks, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. I’m sorry you have to deal with all of that and I hope you’re hanging in there. I’m glad to hear that you’re doing well with coding though and putting out content. I hope it goes viral and you make it big time. And even if not, I hope you are able to find joy and happiness in doing it.
I enjoy discussing certain political issues, particularly when it can be done in a civil manner rather than the usual garbage fire you see in comment boards, and when both sides are open to hearing what the other side has to say.
Let’s keep it simple and address one point at a time.
I understand your argument to be that your freedom of speech is imperiled because you are unable to post freely on Twitter without being blocked and/or the algorithm is working against you to limit who can see what you write. I understand that you believe that Twitter is an open town hall, and that therefore any discrimination against your ability to speak there is violation of your free speech rights under the constitution.
I am not challenging whether you’ve been blocked as you say. As I said earlier, I have no reason to believe that it is not true, and you would know better than I what your personal experiences were.
What I am challenging is that Twitter is an “open town hall” in the sense of a “public town square” that would subject Twitter to the requirements of the First Amendment. I am not really sure why you believe this. The Constitution is very clear: the *government* is not permitted to place restrictions on your right to free speech. If Twitter were a US-government owned and operated entity, then you would have an argument. But it is not the government; it is a privately owned company (in fact that’s how Musk is able to purchase it). It doesn’t matter that the platform has hundreds of millions of users and that it is the best tool available for using speech to reach a mass audience. It wouldn’t matter if Musk actually goes forward with the purchase of Twitter and declares that he’s turning it into an “open town hall” / “public town square” for perpetuity. None of that makes it subject to the first amendment, because Twitter is not the government. Maybe you can help me understand why you believe that Twitter is subject to the first amendment, given that the Constitution specifically only applies to the government, because this is where our big disconnect is.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
Friend,
Opening greetings:
It’s awesome to hear from you. I lost a few friends to political stuff, and that’s why I was apprehensive. I hope you understand and that I love you dearly. Sometimes when I get pissed off from politics, I get pissed off it makes I lose friends and then I’m like freak this. I mean no offense, I freakin love ya bro. I hate the corruption that is politics and dug out my old skin heads against racism band that I used to be personal friends with, hang out at their house and mosh in pits that could have Nazis throwing hands at us guys standing for Bob Marley n stuff, trying to get racism out of the working class youth. Yeah I did my stint in punk and mosh, music generally sucks, but my guys were okay. I talked like a saint until Freedom of Speech became in jeopardy and this is why I talk so much now: If you stay silent when censorship creeps its ugly head, you will not be able to speak out later. Sucks, I don’t want to be involved in politics and this song sums up my thoughts on it, except it corrupted my speech so I no longer restrain most all curse words from my dialect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAonsoryPJc
Truth Collaboration Project addressing:
So it is great that we talk on the point of free speech. I’m well aware of the courts ruling on free speech when it applies to businesses. This is why I normally dodge that specific idea and focus on how 1960s civil rights acts protect the targeted groups that are censored, and that if a company says it is a free and open platform that represents all, it should do such without secretly keeping people down morally. Yet, we have chosen, at least I selected the debate topic of focusing and narrowing down at the very specific topic at hand without wavering to related issues even if they outweigh the consequences of the narrow focus. It is actually fun, to paint within frames sometimes, and the rules we apply to apply to all. So let me begin the specifics of why I believe the law as we interpret today is incorrect.
My case for “Businesses own platforms for the public declaring free for all to use” are Town halls like physical property of the same declaration:
So you’ve seen patents. “How to categorize a group of files… ON A COMPUTER!” They take what you already know how to do, and just add “ON A COMPUTER” and suddenly the law applies to them different. Town halls back in the 1700s and 1800s, they were owned by private citizens and business owners, yet the rules of free speech applied to these town halls despite citizens and businesses owning them by declaration of using them publicly. Twitter is a business owned place people gather to talk, “ON A COMPUTER”. The law should not be different.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” -Thomas Jefferson; Declaration of Independence 1776
It is unconstitutional not just freedom of speech to target individuals, but here in the Declaration of Independence, we’ve denied that all men are equal… That some men’s voice is allowed to be heard while others are silence… I’m veering off the path that goes to the 1960s civil rights act and I’ll bring it back on track. I’m just wondering that if you personally do choose to defend that is okay that some groups are silenced, why is that? I’m not implying you do, but you seem to have some motive to defend this notion of censorship, and again I am not making claims that you do… But you know censorship of political groups you don’t like is always wrong, right? The ACLU once fought for the right of Nazis to be able to speak for if they are silenced than any group could be targeted to be silenced…
And censorship is a double edged sword, and while powerful might not defend one from another political party getting in office upset they’ve been censored and use it back at your group. To me is a universal evil. We have the power not to listen to lies. The problem is that with censorship, lies become empowered because the people lying are generally evil and people who would wield censorship are of the same evil caste. Start lying about something and then use censorship to cover yourself up, and this is how the land descends into darkness, we seen it in Nazi Germany. We saw it in Stalin’s Russia. We see it in Iran. We see it in North Korea. We see it in CCP China. The web of darkness is lies, censorship and then when you fool most of the people, you have secret police find when the nail stands up to hammer it down. The only defense is standing up against it when it rears its ugly head.
Errata 1) Distinction between Public Arenas and Private Arenas
While “Online Public discussion Arenas such as Twitter/Facebook/Truth Social/Gab and the like” are equivalent of Town halls they are not the only online conversation type.
There are online interactions more akin to your private home: A twitch stream, where a guy might say,”Dude, stop flaming star wars here on my star wars stream.” When that person gets banned, it’s like getting kicked out of that person’s home. Other places might be a chat room, a polish club, or breast cancer survivor meetings. Those places not only do not claim public discussion, but if people of not their group show up, it could get weird.
Closing Seek for Truth suggestions of where the conversation may go:
1) You may seek clarification on the topic of hand, disagreeing, agreeing, wanting further info about things.
2) Challenge my basic truths that I used to build up to what I am attempting to reason as truths.
3) You may answer some questions I had in this article: Do you understand how bad censorship is and always preludes dark times?
4) You may explore other objections I have for censorship being evil: Violating 1960 civil rights act, Violating the Declaration of Independence, censorship always leading to dark times in nations.
5) Something else not listed here, aka other. :)
I’ll close with saying,”Good hearing from ya bro, you seem quite cordial. And that is pleasant.” I’m not comfortable with politics. I know a LOT. I knew voting booths would be hackable in 2000 and it took em 20 years to catch up to my level. I knew about the deflation issues and how 1 stimulus check was needed, but when inflation first started, they lagged about a year before adjusting the FED. I followed the FED for about 8 years and I have no clue why, lol. I still didn’t like to talk about politics, but if you do not talk about censorship when it first shows, you don’t talk about it later. When censorship first rolled in on twitter, my bad jokes got 3 likes, my good jokes got 30, my great jokes got 100+. Then just to see how censored I was, I literally told about 50 great jokes in a row, unspinning news sources directly on their feed. I got no likes on any of them or more than like one ever again in 4 years. I got no followers for 4 years straight when I used to get 3-12 a day. They shut off my analytics data. When they turned it back on, I saw falsification of my analytics data. They attempted to silence the truth. Taliban actively recruit on twitter yet republicans, Christians and Jews are silenced. I could go on and on, but twitter ain’t nothing compared to nationalizing it as an agency to police all speech online, on TV and in print. They have the right to eliminate, delete or even edit it… If you seen how evil the political hate bots I debate are, you’d understand the implications. There are people who will take your words out of context to slander you with something you don’t say. Remember the “Coolsville sucks” scene from the first scoobydoo movie? That happens for real. They actually make screen names similar to mine and mouth off getting ME banned in places. The hate, deception and gas lighting is unreal, and America will lose its freedoms just like every other country who espoused national censorship. This is why I talk politics despite not liking it.
God bless ya Friend. I look forward to seeing further correspondence,
Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
Thanks for the response, Jim. And I’m glad we’re able to have this conversation. I have some more thoughts I’ll address tomorrow, but I’ll share first one quick follow-up question for you before I head to bed. You base your argument in part on this:
“Town halls back in the 1700s and 1800s, they were owned by private citizens and business owners, yet the rules of free speech applied to these town halls despite citizens and businesses owning them by declaration of using them publicly.”
That doesn’t seem right to me, but I’d be happy to look at evidence to the contrary. What leads you to believe that the prohibitions against preventing free speech in the first amendment were found to apply to the private owners of “privately owned town halls”?
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
Friend,
That’s what the history books teach. Town Halls were owned by largely by private individuals. We can both gather this information if you’d like.
I’m launching a mmo tomorrow, so I’ll be pressed for time.
;)
Pray for me to launch this game even if you don’t think he’s up there listening. He is. One way some people find God is about praying for zillions of things they want and being specific so the odds of happening are absurdly rare. Then when those things happen over and over beyond astronomical odds, you just discovered that love has power. You must be loving and you always have been, even when I was low key rude and unchristian like in correspondence, you extended grace to me. I know you always have love and friendship in your heart, so if you do pray, look out, world gonna change and your hope will well up beyond your imagination. Everything God does is strange and wonderful so I believe he appreciates creative people like you when you send up some curious prayers.
God bless,
Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
Hey Jim, I’m not familiar with those history books, and this doesn’t seem right to me. If you can find any evidence that town halls were owned by private individuals AND that as a result those individuals were constrained by the First Amendment, I’ll be happy to take a look. I couldn’t find anything to support this in a quick search.
The issue is the same as if a church opened up a community message board in its foyer that it welcomed members of the public to use. Even though the church opened it up publicly, they could still remove messages that included curse words or said “Hail Satan!” If they wanted to. That would not be an infringement upon the free speech rights of the Satanists.
I also wanted to respond quickly to one other question you raised:
“I’m just wondering that if you personally do choose to defend that is okay that some groups are silenced, why is that? I’m not implying you do, but you seem to have some motive to defend this notion of censorship, and again I am not making claims that you do… But you know censorship of political groups you don’t like is always wrong, right? The ACLU once fought for the right of Nazis to be able to speak for if they are silenced than any group could be targeted to be silenced… “
I am a very strong proponent of the Right to Free Speech — but as properly understood as constraining the government. I think that it is important to use the term correctly so that people have a true understanding of what their rights are and how they should protect them. Otherwise, people lose sight of what the constitution actually guarantees. The bill of rights is an important protection against government overreach.
There is a difference between (1) “some groups being silenced” and (2) “some groups being silenced on Twitter” or “some groups being silenced on the church’s community message board.” The ACLU fought for the right of Nazis to be able to speak [by obtaining a parade permit from the government] for if they are silenced [by the government] than any group could be targeted to be silenced [by the government]…
Good luck with the MMO launch today. Don’t worry about needing to respond right away. I’ll be around :)
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
>The issue is the same as if a church opened up a community message board in its foyer that it welcomed members of the public to use. Even though the church opened it up publicly, they could still remove messages that included curse words or said “Hail Satan!” If they wanted to. That would not be an infringement upon the free speech rights of the Satanists.
I’ll quickly address this one.
Remember how I stated in the previous email:
————–
————–
————–
Errata 1) Distinction between Public Arenas and Private Arenas
While “Online Public discussion Arenas such as Twitter/Facebook/Truth Social/Gab and the like” are equivalent of Town halls they are not the only online conversation type.
There are online interactions more akin to your private home: A twitch stream, where a guy might say,”Dude, stop flaming star wars here on my star wars stream.” When that person gets banned, it’s like getting kicked out of that person’s home. Other places might be a chat room, a polish club, or breast cancer survivor meetings. Those places not only do not claim public discussion, but if people of not their group show up, it could get weird.
————–
————–
————–
A Church is a private area not designed for public discussion. People aren’t allowed to drown out the pastor. They get kicked out.
Town halls were places specifically made for public discussion.
……..
I’m gaining a better view of where you are coming from. Do you understand the distinction between a publicly open discourse area and one designed for a private individual or club? Please ask questions or engage in challenging the truths that support this if you choose.
As for a list of unresolved topics(we should both try and keep track of these as we focus on one at a time):
1) Give you history book references for how town halls were established.
2) Why ACLU fought for rights of even Nazis to not be silenced by the government, and how Biden’s Ministry of Truth/Cyber Town halls wants to silence groups of far less caliber. I was silenced under hate speech for saying,”Everyone should love each other.” So the abuse happens.
,Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
I think I can clarify this point for you.
“A Church is a private area not designed for public discussion. People aren’t allowed to drown out the pastor. They get kicked out.“
I understand the distinction you were trying to make, that’s why I built into my hypothetical that the church “opened up a community message board in its foyer that it welcomed members of the public to use.” I’m not talking about people shouting down the pastor, I’m talking about a message board that the church sets up in its lobby which it specifically encourages all members of the public to use. In that case, they can still take down the “Hail Satan” poster even though they opened up the board for public discussion.
To your question:
“ Do you understand the distinction between a publicly open discourse area and one designed for a private individual or club?”
I understand the distinction that you are trying to draw, but I would separate “publicly open discourse area” into two different categories: (1) a government-owned or operated area, and (2) a privately owned area generally available for public discourse. The first amendment applies to 1, but not to 2 (and this is the crux of our disagreement here).
As to the open points you raise below, please note:
1. I am not looking for a general book referencing how town halls were established. I am looking for specific evidence that private individuals were prohibited from making prohibitions regarding speech because of the first amendment.
2. As long as you agree that the “ACLU fought for rights of even Nazis to not be silenced by the government” then I don’t think we are in disagreement. Ultimately, yes, I want to discuss your views on Biden because I disagree that he has taken away free speech, but we need to conclude the Twitter point first.
Hope the release is going well!
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
>I understand the distinction you were trying to make, that’s why I built into my hypothetical that the church “opened up a community message board in its foyer that it welcomed members of the public to use.” I’m not talking about people shouting down the pastor, I’m talking about a message board that the church sets up in its lobby which it specifically encourages all members of the public to use.
This is certainly not true. If you have a message board in your house, does this mean everyone in the world can barge in at any hours and you cannot by law tell them to leave.
There is a distinction between a private property and a property declaring itself,”We allow all public people to use this place.”
Churches do not specifically allow everyone to come in. We open ourselves up to everyone, but we have the right to kick people out who are being disruptive, just as a polish club could kick someone out who is causing problems, a women club could kick out a guy trying to perv on them, the volunteer fire department could kick you out of the fire hall yelling “bingo” repeatedly harassing the old ladies playing bingo.
You’re making it clear to me where your disconnect is. You quite literally do not understand the difference between a private gathering that affords the public the right to join, and a place designated for open public discourse as the original town halls were.
I’m actually coding my game and just passed noticing this disconnect, so I ninja fielded it, and getting back to work. I’m literally non stop coding today, but this was an easy one to field.
,Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
Jim, you are welcome to think that I don’t understand the distinction that you are trying to draw if you want to, but it just isn’t true. And you are ignoring the hypothetical as I’ve set it out. I’m not saying that churches generally “allow everyone to come in”, but I specified in my hypothetical that a church itself (not your church) decided to open up a part of its property specifically for open public discourse, and it specifically stated “we want to foster community discourse so we are opening this up to the public to come and post messages”. In that case, the church can still remove messages that go against its values.
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
Friend,
>Jim, you are welcome to think that I don’t understand the distinction that you are trying to draw if you want to, but it just isn’t true. And you are ignoring the hypothetical as I’ve set it out. I’m not saying that churches generally “allow everyone to come in”, but I specified in my hypothetical that a church itself (not your church) decided to open up a part of its property specifically for open public discourse, and it specifically stated “we want to foster community discourse so we are opening this up to the public to come and post messages”. In that case, the church can still remove messages that go against its values.
So there’s still a disconnect in what you’re saying. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I’ll reiterate. If you understood, you would not have said a conflicting paragraph.
i) If you understand me, you understand that a church organization designated as private is like a club, a house, or a twitch chat room. People can be kicked out for many reasons of private venues
ii) Yet, you’re still thinking they must abide by the same rules as an organization designated as open to everyone public venues. There are very strict laws regarding not kicking certain people out of public open to all venues.
You said you understood me, then went on to say that a private venue(in your example church), must abide by public rules not applicable to private venues. Do you understand the disconnect of what you said? If you actually understood me, you would know there is a differentiation between a public open to all venue and a private venue. You can hold a party at your house and let your friends invite friends you never met, but if you don’t like them for any reason, you can kick em off the property. You’re not legally required to let every jerk that wants to come on your property to stay, you can call the police if you have to and get them out. People who come to ask questions in press conferences or residents bringing up grievances at local public meetings can’t be kicked out just because they ask hard questions… This is what is being done in Twitter.
,Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
With respect, Jim, I think the disconnect lies on your side. I’ll try to explain another way. From what I understand you to be saying, you are claiming that a private entity like a church could not set up a “publicly open discourse area” as you envision it even if they specifically wanted to. I’ll admit to not understanding why you say that, because the only reason you give for saying that is to assume the conclusion (the church is a private club can limit speech in a way that Twitter can’t).
JIM:
>With respect, Jim, I think the disconnect lies on your side. I’ll try to explain another way. From what I understand you to be saying, you are claiming that a private entity like a church could not set up a “publicly open discourse area”
Incorrect. Let me know if you get this:
You can have a public area in your private venue: your yard. This does not mean you can’t kick people off it.
A public venue: A town hall has different rules for it is designed for an all inclusivity of political talk.
Would you be able to please call and verify you’re Friend I went to high school with? I have had possible problems with people impersonating my friends on Facebook before, due to either hacks or just signing up under their name.
,Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
Okay maybe now we’re starting to get somewhere, but we still have some ways to go. So you agree that a private entity could set up a “public area” but still moderate speech and kick people off it. (The government, by contrast, would not be able to do so.) The disconnect is see though is that you are holding Twitter to a different standard, even though it too is a private entity that has set up a “public area”. Just because you want to say that it is a “public venue” doesn’t make it different, which I hope you’ll be able to see when you look into the question of whether private owners of town halls were constrained by the first amendment.
If you can’t tell who I am based off of the conversation that we started on Facebook, I’m not sure what to tell you, Jim.
Cheers,
Friend
I think I understand the disconnect here now. I think you are referring to “public accommodations” as that is defined in Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of political belief or religion, and which specifically does not apply to “private clubs”.
There are two problems with this approach however:
1. We are not talking about the civil rights act, we are talking about free speech. Whether something is a “public accommodation” or “private club” is a key consideration under the Civil Rights Act, but not for purposes of the First Amendment. Rather, the key consideration for free speech is whether the entity is a government entity or not.
2. Even if the civil rights act did apply to first amendment concerns (it does not), the law gives a very specific definition of public accommodations that would not include Twitter. It applies to entities serving food, physical venues providing entertainment (sports arenas, movie theaters, etc) and hotels.
Does that make more sense?
JIM:
> We are not talking about the civil rights act, we are talking about free speech.
No I am talking about the first amendment and how it applies to public town halls. I’ve wasted too much time today on this. You need to read the law of this. I can’t dig it out, I’m non stop working and I got distracted a few times. We can adjourn til I have time.
FRIEND OF JIM:
There is no such law, Jim. But I’ll be happy to be proven wrong if you can find otherwise. (And I hope you will admit I’m right if you can’t find one.). Take your time and focus on coding for now. No rush.
JIM:
It’s from late 1700s. You say you’re a lawyer yet confidently speak on every law known to man existing and not existing despite there being millions of them? Look, you’re wavering my confidence with such a statement, but I was reading law and history books. It will take me hours to get it, so maybe we adjourn til I have time.
FRIEND OF JIM:
Jim, I don’t need to know every law known to man to understand first amendment legal jurisprudence in the United States. There aren’t millions of US federal laws.
Here’s a solid list of laws enacted by the US Congress in the 1700s if that’s when you think it’s from. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1789–1901.) The only one from the list I can see relating to free speech was the Aliens and Sedition’s Act, which made it a crime to make a false statement critical of the US Government. That actually was an unlawful restriction of free speech, but it was not until 1964 that the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional, because the first amendment prohibits the government from criminalizing speech with which it did not agree.
Show me the law that does what you claim and, as I said, I’ll happily be proven wrong. I hope likewise that you can admit that you are wrong if you find that it doesn’t exist.
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
Friend,
You cycled back to something we already addressed: Current Law interpretation is incorrect. I know the current law interpretation. Historically it was different.
Law changes interpretation over history, I am sure you are aware. Adultery is still against the law, but not prosecuted. Innocent until proven guilty used to be more concerned with. Seizure of possessions used to be constitutionally illegal now cell phones are nabbed at air ports by TSA, cops take your loose cash as ‘evidence’. Even Separation of Church and State originally was penned to protect the church from the state, but got turned around in the courts in the 1900s for the opposite purpose to outlaw prayer.
Sir, we already both agreed current law is not what I argue original law was. So why bring that up again?
,Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
Thanks for the clarification, Jim. There is a difference, of course, between whether a law exists (that is, currently in force) and interpreted by the courts incorrectly, vs whether the law has specifically been abandoned and no longer exists. I had understood you to be arguing that there was still a law existing regarding this, and that it was just interpreted incorrectly by the courts as not applying to Twitter.
(See below where you say, “Twitter is a business owned place people gather to talk, “ON A COMPUTER”. The law should not be different.”)
Either way, it’s difficult to talk about this meaningful without seeing the historical law that you have in mind. When you have the time (again, no rush) please do send it over.
Cheers,
Friend
JIM:
Friend,
>There is a difference, of course, between whether a law exists (that is, currently in force) and interpreted by the courts incorrectly, vs whether the law has specifically been abandoned and no longer exists.
This is an EXTREMELY key concept of the very core of our democracy. When laws are written, they’re written by the legislative branch with distinct reasoning, intent and applications. The Supreme Court can only declare they unconstitutional. Currently the Supreme Court has been actually taken the role of re-interpreting the reasoning, intent, and applications completely opposite as those who wrote the legislation laid out. The Supreme Court when it is able to say any law means anything, has completely subverted the Checks and Balances which is the foundation of the democracy. No one else can go,”But the framers of the law said completely the opposite of this interpretation in their notes, speeches and why we formed the law to begin with.”
As I stated before, “Separation of Church and State originally was just to protect worshipers from being prohibited from worshiping or worshiping in a state directed manner.” Along the lines it got corrupted by the Supreme Court to mean,”If you’re a politician, you may not worship publicly, and prayer is restricted.” which is the complete opposite of its original intent, for people to be able to worship freely. If someone leads a prayer in school, court or on the legislative floor, we can always disagree. We don’t have to say “Amen” to everything. The very notion of worship is accepting some thoughts and actions that are good and denying those that are not good.
Before you think we’re getting off track, remember this is important to cover for 2 reasons:
1) It ties in with freedom of speech to have freedom of prayer. Saying,”YOU CAN’T SAY THAT PRAYER HERE!” is a limit on speech, and NOT SAY ism.
2) We establish an example by which the Supreme Court can make a law become the exact opposite of its intent, and there are no checks and balances against when the Supreme Court does this corruption. Thus opening the door to one that should have never been closed: Man can make mistakes, be biased, and or bribed. So let me dig that out for you about town halls.
Oh and before I continue, lets look at Daniel of the Bible. I’m sure you know what happened to him even if you do not believe it. Nebuchadnezzar loved Daniel for Daniel interpreted his dream without even being told what it was. Daniel was the big man of the mystics, and the other mystics hated him because only Daniel had any power from God, while God made the rest have none and look like fools. The other fortunetellers, magicians, sorcerers, and wizards who had no power other than show became kinda concerned and jealous of Daniel… After all if they never do anything right and this guy does all the miracles, their time might be up for employment or maybe even be executed someday…So they wanted to dispose of Daniel.
They saw Daniel liked to pray looking out the window. After all, why not, it’s fun to pray looking up at the beauty of the changing day, night, weather and season. They took this and went to the King Nebuchadnezzar,”Yo you’re so often, we should make a day we only pray to you, and if anyone prays to anyone else, lets execute them.” Nebuchadnezzar was quite prideful and had to be temporary struck down humble by God on another occasion so the pride level of him wanting to be worshiped was there and he okayed it. Daniel isn’t gonna stop praying because a law exists… And they brought him to the king after pointing,”LOOK! In the window!” Daniel was tossed to the lions, and he probably chilled with em and stuff like that one person who raised a lion and didn’t see em for a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_yQsyJiGzU Anyway, when Nebuchadnezzar came to the lion pit, he was concerned and asked like,”Friend, you okay? Tell me your God protected you from the Lions.” Friend’s like,”Yeah, I’m good. Was fun to be in the royal petting zoo, but like maybe I get back to my life.” Nebuchadnezzar looked at those fortunetellers, magicians, sorcerers, and wizards who had no power and did this conspiracy to kill Daniel for fear of execution. Nebuchadnezzar ordered those mystics who did evil to be tossed into the lions pit and the lions pounced and killed them before they got to the bottom.
Whether you believe that happened or not, I know it did. I have seen over 20,000 miracles, the odds of which are smaller than picking an atom in the universe and picking it again over 7 times in a row. You cannot scientifically prove God exists by forcing his hand in experiment as universities have tried pridefully. Why would anyone think they could force God’s hand. But you can pray for stuff against all odds, and suddenly those odds multiply up to beyond astronomical odds with no real coincidental chance of happening. This is proof of God. The only leak is that if I was lying for the cause of truth, which makes no sense. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. I cannot serve God by doing the opposite of what he wants and who he is. There’s no way I was hallucinating or tripping, for I wasn’t on drugs, and many of the miracles where I am guided, at the end of it concludes the same way with the same words or direction: www.goodnewsjim.com But say you would think I’m lying for the cause of truth or attention(I don’t need attention, been famous #1 world like every video game I played www.crystalfighter.com/a.html ), let’s say you have concerns I’d be trying to put you on despite having nothing to gain for doing so: You yourself could be praying for obscure stuff and start calculating odds yourself and see God is real if he wills your prayers to be answered. Pray for many things and have love in your heart Friend. The mysteries and miracles of God did not stop after the 12 apostles got executed and the Bible ends. In fact, we can go through some pretty Biblical epic stuff ourselves. When you find out that reality is stranger than fiction, and it gives life purpose to serve God, stuff gets more awesome than you could imagine.
Anyway, I’ll dig ya out those old founding father texts, I think it’s time to give you a bit more.
God bless,
Love is the Way,
Jesus is love,
Jesus is LORD,
,Jim
,Jim
Friend,
It will take me some time to compile this stuff, but modern law says you can have Town Hall meetings in private places, so long as you don’t charge money like bribes so law is still in effect: https://ethics.house.gov/official-outside-organizations/conferences-and-town-hall-meetings
Another modern example of privately owned town hall: https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/news-room/2016/in-the-news/07/long-beach-s-new-city-hall-will-be-privately-owned
I want to dig and see if I can find the early post revolutionary stuff tho, sometimes that old stuff gets to the point in a way that is fun to read since it explains core ideals and what humanity is like.
Outside of Town Halls, Free Speech was even enforced in businesses here and there: https://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/states-speak-out-free-speech-malls/
I’m still looking for my old stuff, but all these are relevant.
Dude, I straight spent an hour in Library of Congress fascinated with old stuff(past the half hour+ to get you the above), but it wasn’t the official place I found that old town halls were often privately owned. Well I gave some modern examples. This is tiring. Need sleep. ;)
God bless,
Jim
FRIEND OF JIM:
Hey Jim — thanks for sending these over. I’ll take a look when I can and get back to you shortly!
Cheers,
Friend
CONCLUSION:
After my friend reviewed my proof that Town Halls have been privately owned on many occasions even to this day, he thanked me for the discussion and enlightening him on US Law that Privately Owned Town Halls must obey the First Amendment. He didn’t even know such a thing existed: Privately Owned Town Halls, but he is extremely extremely educated and a gentleman of class as you may have noted in his correspondence. None of us actually know everything, not even in our own fields.
By my friend who practices law for a profession found out that Privately Owned Town Halls were indeed a thing he then conceded that Online Venues that are the exact analogous equivalent of Privately Owned Town Halls also must abide by the First Amendment.
Any online space that says it is open for everyone to talk publicly must abide by the First Amendment. This means banning people due to any reason: Sex/Age/Race/Religion/Politics/ETC is illegal in US Law. Shadowbanning and censoring some of what they say is also illegal.