Posted on 03/21/2022 7:17:29 AM PDT by Morgana
Conservative Christian satire website The Babylon Bee has been suspended by Twitter over a tweet naming transgender US Assistant Secretary of Health Dr Rachel Levine its 'Man of the Year.'
Despite facing the prospect of a permanent ban from the social media platform, where it has 1.3 million followers, the website has struck a defiant tone, refusing to delete the offending tweet targeting the trailblazing government official.
'Truth is not hate speech,' Seth Dillon, the website's CEO, tweeted on Sunday. 'If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.'
On March 15, The Babylon Bee's Twitter account fired off a tweet featuring a link to an article bearing the headline: 'The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.'
It came in response to USA Today's decision to name Levine as one of its women of the year, and as controversy continues to rage over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.
The story repeatedly used male pronouns to refer to Levine, who identifies as a woman, 'dead-named' her by using her male birth name, and mocked her appearance, describing the senior health official as being 'the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman.'
The article continued: 'He is also an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. What a boss!
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
"AMICI BRIEFS FILED IN KEY WEB-CENSORSHIP CASEThe battle against censorship in America is taking place in the 5th Circuit in Netchoice v. Paxton, and amici for free speech have just filed their briefs. The case will decide the constitutionality of the Texas social media statute, which is the most promising response to Big Tech manipulation of the nation’s political, religious, cultural, and scientific debates.
The Texas statute:
• Designates the tech companies as common carriers.
• Bars them from censoring others on the basis of their viewpoints.
• Preserves the freedom of tech companies to restrict unlawful or unwholesome content.
• Provides only the mildest possible remedies—injunctive and declaratory relief, not damages.The statute protects the free speech of Americans without limiting the free speech of the tech companies:
• The companies are common carriers, which provide conduits for the speech of others. So, when this statute bars them from viewpoint discrimination, it is only preventing them from censoring the speech of others. It is not limiting them in their own speech.
• This sort of anti-discrimination restriction on common carriers was traditionally imposed by both common law and statute. It has been applied to communications common carriers since the 19th century, without any question about its compatibility with the First Amendment.
"
LOL. Except for the part where the government is forcing them to use their private property to disseminate speech they don't agree with.
Other than that their speech isn't limited.
I disagree that communications companies have any right to cutoff the speech of others which goes through their communications infrastructure.
If they do not wish to allow speech to go through their communications system, they should not be in the communications business.
And at this point, I welcome government stomping them to death if they censor people.
OTOH, who needs Twitter?
Good on the Bee. It’s a damned SATIRE site! Yet more proof that liberals and Leftists have absolutely NO sense of humor - they suck all of the joy out of life. You can’t drive that car, you can eat meat, you can’t use the lightbulbs that you want, you can’t have a toilet that actually flushes the first time, and you surely cannot say whatever comes to mind, no matter how true, if it disagrees with their narrative of the week. Screw them!
daily mail left wing BS.I prefer the bee,
https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine
.
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-complains-that-white-house-staff-drapes-flags-over-him-every-time-he-naps
No you don't.
You can't tell me you think Rupert Murdock should be forced to use the News Corp infrastructure to publish any nonsense I send them.
Nor Netflix, Free Republic or Citizen Free Press.
You're just special pleading again.
Give me your specific definition of a "communications company" and lets see how long you maintain your confiscatory stance.
Moving the goal posts.
Companies that allow the public to communicate with other members of the public are "common carriers."
They have no right to censor, and they should be punished severely for attempting to censor.
Nor Netflix, Free Republic or Citizen Free Press.
Netflix is a broadcasting system, "Free Republic" is a club, and so is "citizen free press."
You're just special pleading again.
You are distorting definitions.
Give me your specific definition of a "communications company" and lets see how long you maintain your confiscatory stance.
"A company which allows members of the public to communicate with other members of the public over communications infrastructure.
Bttt.
5.56mm
Broadcasting isn't communication?
"Free Republic" is a club, and so is "citizen free press."
You're grasping.
Free Republic is a club. You can only associate here with those select few people who qualify by having email addresses.
"A company which allows members of the public to communicate with other members of the public over communications infrastructure.
Free Republic, any email service, every website that has a comments function, every ISP, every VOIP provider, every satellite phone system, etc., etc.
When you give the government this power they aren't going to come to you to ask if these were the companies you had in mind. They'll interpret your words in the way that gives them the most power.
Say “Man”. Say MAN.
Good for the Bee. Twaddle is losing ground every day to platforms like Gettr and others. The Twaddle tanks, the better.
It isn't communications between members of the public.
It is one way communication from some entity to members of the public. It is closer to being a "press" than is fascist book or Goolag.
You're grasping.
No i'm not. I've been saying this for a long time. You have to become a member of Free Republic to post here. This is a small outfit as such things go, and has no significant impact on the larger system of communications.
Free Republic is a club. You can only associate here with those select few people who qualify by having email addresses.
And who advocate conservatism. If you try posting liberal crap on this website, you get kicked off. Free Republic is a forum for conservatives to discuss ideas and opinions.
But why do you always want to bring up "Free Republic" in the context of billion user fascist companies censoring Americans? They are not even remotely similar.
When you give the government this power they aren't going to come to you to ask if these were the companies you had in mind.
Facebook, twitter, google and etc are already different faces of government censorship. They are proxies for government and they only censor topics the government wants censored.
They have no mind of their own, they are good little Nazis.
They'll interpret your words in the way that gives them the most power.
They already do and their agents act upon the government's desire.
Talking about how dangerous are the vaccines?
"That's misinformation!"
Talk about the election steal in 2020?
"That's misinformation!"
Point out that F@ggots in dresses are still men?
"That's misinformation!"
The HORROR! Bradley Manning and Bruce Jenner are appalled. "Dead-naming" is a thoughtcrime new to me but it certainly follows the pattern. When a pronoun is no longer a part of speech but grounds for sending the user to the camps, we've indulged these creeps long enough.
By your standard you have to become a member of FB, Twitter, or any of the tech platforms to use them.
In fact, of all these FR is the least restrictive because it requires less information. In fact, all of the socials require you to accept their terms saying you agree to let them moderate content.
They're clubs of people who have chosen to agree to the ground rules of the platform, and they want to associate with like people.
If you try posting liberal crap on this website, you get kicked off. Free Republic is a forum for conservatives to discuss ideas and opinions.
Exactly. And Twitter is for people who agree to abide by what Twitter says and just like FR you'll get booted if you stray.
The only difference is you like one platform's rules but not the other.
But why do you always want to bring up "Free Republic" in the context of billion user fascist companies censoring Americans?
To illustrate that your position is entirely unprincipled and just one of convenience because you don't like certain companies politics.
And giving government these powers is not only unconstitutional it's comically short-sighted.
Talking about how dangerous are the vaccines?
"That's misinformation!"
Talk about the election steal in 2020?
"That's misinformation!"
Point out that F@ggots in dresses are still men?
"That's misinformation!"
And talking about those topics with a different spin will get you booted from FR. So what?
You act like there aren't hundreds of other forums and platforms where you can post to your heart's content.
You're just upset that the most popular ones have different politics than you.
The internet's a rough place. Get used to it.
Satire is protected speech according to the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.