Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Carolina Panthers Training Camp - Sunday Morning Thoughts and Musings


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

First Amendment.

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

Stop this cancel culture bull!

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

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pup McBarky said:

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

95FC0ECE-21F6-492A-B23A-01905B35D413.thumb.jpeg.815f8eda8ecf14458b2e1c6a2150eb92.jpeg

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

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

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Luciu5 said:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

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

Sec 231 applies to forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

Sec 231 applies to forums

Section 231 of what?

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

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

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

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Luciu5 said:

Section 231 of what?

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

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

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

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

That was to protect forum speech SPECIFICALLY. 

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rippadonn said:

That was to protect forum speech SPECIFICALLY. 

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

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

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

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

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Lol. The Texans are literally one of Bryce's six career NFL wins. WTF are you talking about?
    • Yeah, I mean it is a statistical fact and also part of literally a player evaluation. Winston has literally lost dozens of games in his NFL career due to crippling TO's. It's just who he is. Look, it's fun when those insane throws work and he is leading you back from some crazy deficit. But those success are rare. It's why his career GWD count is so low. He's fun but he is fundamentally built to lose games.  If you are talking about a backup QB, you are literally already losing in the first place. That's how you see a backup QB and that's overwhelmingly what they tend to do. Rookie QB's almost always benefit from veteran QB's. Same as literally any other position in the NFL. Why do you think that you so often hear that from the playera themselves? As for Bryce NEEDING one, no he sure as poo shouldn't this late in the game. But he also shouldn't have needed this fuging long to get his fuging footwork straightened out either. Yet here we are.
    • Comfortability is the primary reason. They don't want to hurt Bryce's confidence. But I say if his confidence is that fragile that healthy competition which makes everyone better is enough for them to keep making Andy Dalton rich then Bryce was never going to be the guy anyway. Give me the QB who sees the competition amongst his peers and uses it to take it to the next level. Instead we get the guy who comes out looking like a deer in the headlights against the Texans after we've done everything possible to appease him. Definition of complacency.
×
×
  • Create New...