Exclusion is NOT Inclusion

Freedom of thought is being punished and censorship becomes the mission. We have seen this ad nauseum via liberal policies, agendas and mandates.

It is not difficult to grasp but unfortunately, you come down on the side of the oppressor and that doesn't support freedom. YOU make the subjective rules ("If WE feel you are talking, thinking and behaving in a non-inclusive way") and then you demand compliance.

When facts are removed by mods and 48 hour timers are given , that is 100% censorship.

upvoted

Spot on.
(*cite sources with a link, they usually bury it with a subjective "low rated comment" tag,
which is a form of censorship, as manipulating content to affect views.)

My experience of getting facts banned was quoting black crime rates- Seems like it is racist to identify the people committing crimes in areas if they are black.. ;)

That is correct! 🤣

Only the left is allowed to identify (or, as is often the case, discriminate against) people by their skin color.

"Nonsense - no one is being censored..."

Wow, that's either unbelievable ignorance, or willful ignorance, or even a flat out lie (hard to believe you're unaware of the censorship the Brandon administration has engaged in with big tech and media... )

I guess you're unaware of Matt Taibbi and the Twitter Files. Unbelievable...

"... which you should realize by the fact that you guys literally never shut up about being censored"

You need to grasp something simple; even Demented Joe Bribe-em has enough of a grip on reality to know that when you censor, you absolutely do not censor the people who are pointing it out. Because doing so would only prove the censorship.

The censorship you're pitifully trying to deny comes from govt cooperation with removing accts from social media, shadow banning, etc.

It comes from the Obama and Bribe-em DOJ's using the Patriot Act to circumvent constitutional rights as fundamental as needing a search warrant to spy on we, the American people.

It comes from big tech suppressing the facts of the Hunter laptop, and more than 50 former senior intelligence officials lying about the laptop story being Russian disinformation.

It comes from a judge putting a gag order on Trump, while he lets all of Trump's opponents enjoy their 1A rights.

Censorship by libs is everywhere. Just because you're on the team doing the censoring, and because of that you either don't care, lie, or are blissfully ignorant, does not make it go away.

There’s a lot to unpack there, but I want to focus on one thing with this comment: the gag order.

Let’s put this way: should a criminal be able to say things about a witness that might prevent them from wanting to testify? Truth is, gag orders are used more frequently than you think, but is only gaining publicity because it’s a former president on trial who has a history of insulting and, In my opinion, slandering said witnesses. Would you feel the same way about the gag orders if it was happening with, say, OJ Simpson, instead of Trump?

"There’s a lot to unpack there..."

A good chunk of it is a list of examples of the left engaging in censorship. I suppose each could be unpacked, but to me they're all the same: censorship.

To use an analogy that Dementia Joe *might* understand, if we think of censorship as ice cream, the types listed are flavors. Joe likes cherry red. 🤣

"...should a criminal be able to say things about a witness that might prevent them from wanting to testify?"

A lot to unpack there! First of all, I question your use of the word criminal. I know you're being generic, but many would take that to mean Trump. Even if generic, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Unless you believe being charged with a crime makes you a criminal? I do not.

Unless you're a lawyer, we're not lawyers. But I would imagine the law has a standard to be met for that. I imagine the judge in this case would mis-apply whatever legal standard there is for that, due to his raging, on display TDS.

It's not so much the gag order that has people upset, it's the unequal application. Trump can't say anything but the other side enjoys full 1A rights? That's ridiculous.

Short of a specific threat, if being insulted or even slandered will stop *any* witness from wanting to testify, that shouldn't be an issue. Both sides should be able to say whatever they want, imo.

"Would you feel the same way about the gag orders if it was happening with, say, OJ Simpson, instead of Trump?"

Yes.

No worries. You weren't really harsh. Like I said, I knew you were speaking generically.

Objective or Subjective ?

"Social Contracts" & "terms of service"
with no recourse to address customer service