Florida senator Joe Gruters proposes the 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act'

[QuantumPhysics]

Let's take the Progressive side. Assume that pro-choice and equal treatment are the primary, undeniable human rights. Then why don't they grant equal, pro-choice rights to men? If a woman decides to have a baby, why can't he default on parenthood? Women can. A man who denies a 'woman's right to choose' is called a sexist bigot. Yet if he claims the same right for himself, he's also called a sexist bigot. Progressives claim to care about equal treatment and pro-choice. Yet they unapologetically deny men those rights. Odd.

If there were a 50-50 chance of a man getting pregnant during sex, this wouldn't even be an issue.

the thing that disappoints me about women is until recently they haven't found the strength to speak aloud that it's their body and their choice. If I was a woman, there is no force on this Earth that could force me to have a baby I didn't want...period. And considering that many women don't believe in God, all that Christian conservative stuff goes right out the window.

As for the paternal rights...it's NOT his body.

I DO NOT believe in life at conception.

As for "late term abortion", I definitely would get an abortion if I found out I was about to have a malformed baby. No negotiations.

Women who don't want a pregnancy have poisoned themselves and forced abortions for centuries. Trying to criminalize women for abortion will only drive them back into the back alleys for abortion. At least with government involved, abortion is "registered" and "tracked".

I spent time in the Philippines. Abortions are illegal there - but there are plenty of them.

I side with Bill Clinton: Abortion should be legal, safe and rare.

And I will vote that way.

 

[jpuroila]

People would end up declining to use these social media services and they'd be ruined.

And that would be a GOOD thing

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

And that will be left to the owners of these social media websites.

Not some sad conservative who wants bigger government in order to allow more right-wingers to be able to spew their intimidating, violent, racist, and hateful rhetoric over the net.

I'll say it again.

If conservatives/republicans/right wingers/ racists/nationalists - whatever they want to call themselves - can get their own servers.

This bonehead law will never see the light of day.
.

Agreed - There's a whole pile of reasons this would never even make to be voted on, let alone pass. Here are the easy ones.. It's political suicide... rights have limits, even freedom of speech...and most importantly, you can probably count on 1 hand the number of people who'd agree with this.

You have to appreciate the irony though of trashing republicans while using their own arguments to do it. Those being - 1) we don't want unnecessary regulation that serves no purpose outside of your own personal agenda 2) The govt should keep their hands out of private business, 3) It would cause more problems than it would fix 4) The first answer to an issue isn't MORE government 5) There's no clear plan for enforcing it, so it wouldn't work as advertised anyway.

Careful - or people will take your comments out of context and think you're a republican!

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

Is this much different from spam calls and harassment over the phone?

 

[Morris Minor]

I think a lot of you yanks are missing the point, if twatter is so big and has an effect on your elections even trump can't block people then banning everyone from the right is bad. just look at the bs about Russian bots and you are happy with twatter doing the same?

as for calling everyone on the right racists/nationalists, nothing like generalising about a group of people, when the southern poverty law centre has estimated the US has something like 12,000 people on the far right out of a population of 325 million. nothing like being a far left bigot.

At the end of the day, the only way you can change peoples minds is by free and open discussion. taking that away and driving them underground, keeping them in a bubble will only make things worse.

 

[EClyde]

The left is being censored also. In fact, that's the primary target. The right was censored first because they're a soft target with their hate speech and conspiracy theories.

You made that up

 

[wizardB]

It's proactive V reactive, I think you will find the ones trying to put others down are on the right, the left are reacting to that which is hardly the same. My post was about right-wingers loving big government when it suits there agenda like regulating women's uteri.

The left react when they say something stupid and are asked for proof (which they never have)Then they call you a racist a homophobe or some other insult without ever offering any proof of their outrageous statements.

 

[TempleOrion]

What a surprise. Right winger shows himself to be a pathetic snowflake, stamping his feet 'cos he can't get his own way - it's just the US news everyday... LOL

 

[HenryS]

I support this 100% because I support freedom of speech. What's more important, Google's political agenda, or our amendment rights? There are so many comments from "tolerant" liberals stereotyping the right as bigoted, racist, etc, etc. That's the problem. Everyone on the right is "hateful" and guilty according to them. This isn't about Alex Jones. It's ordinary Americans with rather mild opinions being targeted over and over again. Did you know Apple banned a pro-life app from it's App Store because pro-abortionists claim it was "hate speech"? It's ridiculous and it's unAmerican.

 

[Lew Zealand]

So many claims, so many straw men, so little documented evidence. Such typical political posting.