Jump to content

Howard Stern Wants OJ Simpson Thrown Off Twitter; Interviews Kim Goldman


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BillsFan17 said:

So, what you are saying is, it's not in the first amendment? Gotcha 

Shocking that the brilliant founders neglected to mention Twitter in the amendment. I wonder if they were worried we'd be too stupid to figure out who the gov't is and isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, klos63 said:

Shocking that the brilliant founders neglected to mention Twitter in the amendment. I wonder if they were worried we'd be too stupid to figure out who the gov't is and isn't?

I never once brought the government into it. My stance is you are inherently able say and or express your self, without anyone person or entity to infringe upon that. Idc if it's over the radio or on a social media platform. Deplatforming people creates very dangerous precedents. Simple as that. You can try whatever mental gymnastics you want to convince me otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BillsFan17 said:

I never once brought the government into it. My stance is you are inherently able say and or express your self, without anyone person or entity to infringe upon that. Idc if it's over the radio or on a social media platform. Deplatforming people creates very dangerous precedents. Simple as that. You can try whatever mental gymnastics you want to convince me otherwise. 

No mental gymnastics involved, the topic was free speech, you don't understand the laws pertaining to free speech and you continually demonstrate that fact.  Start swearing on the this site and see how long you last. You can get banned and the administrators have every right to do so.  I understand your point, but I don't think you totally get how it works.

5 minutes ago, BillsFan17 said:

I never once brought the government into it. My stance is you are inherently able say and or express your self, without anyone person or entity to infringe upon that. Idc if it's over the radio or on a social media platform. Deplatforming people creates very dangerous precedents. Simple as that. You can try whatever mental gymnastics you want to convince me otherwise. 

That's not entirely true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

No, it's really not.

You don't have the right to say whatever you want, and you certainly don't have the right to do it without consequences. You just have the right not to be imprissioned or sanctioned by the government for it.

 

Is an old man like Stern failing to “get the internet” grounds for censorship?

 

no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Leonhart2017 said:

I love Howard and can’t  say enough great things about what he has done in his career BUT... it seems a tad bit hypocritical of him to want to silence anyone considering the years he spent playing the free speech card when he was getting harassed by the FCC.

 

He didn't brutally murder two human beings.  There is zero hypocrisy, here.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard was the first to publicly make fun of the OJ murders, causing Letterman huge embarrassment during an appearance on Late Night. Then Dave was cracking jokes a few weeks later

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paulus said:

I love you, OJ!

 

Classic Nordberg gif to remember the times before the lies.

 

 

 

He went over that rail like a WARRIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BillsFan17 said:

Free speech is free speech, on any platform. Across any playing field you put it on.

 

No, it's not. Not when we're discussing Free Speech as it pertains to the 1st Amendment.

 

The American ideal of 1st Amendment Free Speech is specifically about the Government and only the Government not blocking your free speech. Any private entity can block, ban, censor you all they want. There is no law protecting you from being banned from Twitter, or fired from work, or kicked out of a party, for popping off or being a persona non grata.

 

It's kinda sad we even need to have this conversation. And I only responded to your original post because Im so tired of seeing people misunderstand how "1st Amendment Protected Free Speech" works.

Edited by DrDawkinstein
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when it comes to howard wanting to silence oj, i don't think it has anything to do with free speech.  i think he's more on a rant about oj self promoting, and possibly making a profit on it while the goldmans have received very little from the civil settlement.  this is my take on his take, but it seems like the fact that oj is broadcasting from nice homes, golf courses, etc, and living a nice life even after he got off murder is what bothers howard.  it's not so much censoring him because of a message. 

 

on top of that, remember, the guy is filling up airtime. it's all part of the act.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

No, it's not. Not when we're discussing Free Speech as it pertains to the 1st Amendment.

 

The American ideal of 1st Amendment Free Speech is specifically about the Government and only the Government not blocking your free speech. Any private entity can block, ban, censor you all they want. There is no law protecting you from being banned from Twitter, or fired from work, or kicked out of a party, for popping off or being a persona non grata.

 

It's kinda sad we even need to have this conversation. And I only responded to your original post because Im so tired of seeing people misunderstand how "1st Amendment Protected Free Speech" works.

 

Censorship demands because you can’t take a good natured ribbing or understand an obvious joke is hilarious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Censorship demands because you can’t take a good natured ribbing or understand an obvious joke is hilarious

 

Where was that done here? Where did I mention that in any of my posts?

 

Im simply clarifying the law. If you are feeling victimized and oppressed, that's a different conversation.

Edited by DrDawkinstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Where was that done here? Where did I mention that in any of my posts?

 

Im simply clarifying the law. If you are feeling victimized and oppressed, that's a different conversation.

 

Thanks F Lee Bailey Jr. all this free and totally unasked for legal advice here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2019 at 2:06 PM, Phil The Thrill said:

 

A lot of people joked about OJ being on Twitter.  This interview shows the gravity of a very sad situation:

 

 

The ‘gravity’ of one more buffoon in a population of millions of them spewing nonsense on Twitter?  Wow.

 

 

p.s.  The Goldman’s should have gotten better grief therapy.  Still doing OJ interviews 25 years later is what is sad here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2019 at 5:11 PM, Limeaid said:

I heard OJ wants Howard kicked off so feeling is mutual.  

Lol 

 

exactly!!! 

18 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

He didn't brutally murder two human beings.  There is zero hypocrisy, here.

So all criminals should be banned from Twitter?

 

 

 

 

hurray no more Donald  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...