Yeah…Hank claimed later he was ‘joking.’ (even if we gave him the benefit of the doubt…he’s still a moron.)

D&S– “conservative” might not be the first word that pops into my head, but I don’t want to quibble with defining terms.(and I’ll take them as allies, any day.)
— I ran across D&S early on, and it was highly amusing. More power to them for monetizing their content. They need to branch out however, cuz’ they are sorta at the mercy of facebook/youtube right now. (If they had to pay for the bandwidth on Youtube’s end, they would have a different Model.)
They have just enough reach to be a thorn in the side of YouTube, but not enough to command more fair treatment. (although, their FOX appearances no doubt drive traffic)

Pivoting–and speaking of alternative-platforms…. who has been following the interesting lawsuit/arbitration, between Mark Steyn & CRTV? (Steyn won a $4 million judgement.)

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/22/facebook-newsfeed-suppress-conservatives/

I remember that Hank Johnson moment where Guam was capsizing and also remember that he was at the time allegedly taking some drug possibly for Hep C that whacked him out, and so I gave him some wiggle room for the moment.

But that was then and this is now and his, what I might characterize as racism, towards these outspoken Conservative black ladies is just a pure naked attempt at a failed political hit job. They and their “outrageous” thinking that they might benefit from their notoriety in how they express their free speech is the problem in his failed political hit attempt.

Here is Rep. Kings response: https://youtu.be/cMYFN_tIbEs ; 6min

The internet and the company’s that have essentially self regulated themselves time has come based on how they have conducted themselves related to their overarching fiduciary responsibilities, the nature of man is to abuse power. And this is a prime example of that absolute rule. Remember when Alan Greenspan said “I thought the banks would properly self regulate themselves” in his interview AFTER the 2008 crash?

(I hope you are doing well, and thanks for having the bravery to interact with me here on BTB)

referencing “legislation protecting free speech,”– it’s called the 1st amendment. We don’t need Mitch & Ryan “protecting free speech,” we need the Executive Branch to carry out it’s duties, one of which is, protecting free speech.

Referencing Hank Johnson– he’s been a moron, for quite some time.

Guam will Capsize and Tip Over into the ocean
Hank Johnson
June 2011
https://youtu.be/cesSRfXqS1Q
2:03

Representative Johnson (An empowered black American Liberal Democrat politician) attempts to condescend and diminish and shame the internet phenomenons Diamond & Silk because they are 1. Conservative, very vocal, very popular and support president Trump. And 2.Because they have a business model to also monetize their very unique and popular videos and associated fame related to their free speech and he totally either through ignorance or his perverted Liberal Democrat agenda fails to understand that these ladies First Amendment rights are absolutely being denied with extreme prejudice by Facebook based in Facebook’s political orientation, Liberal / Leftist.

Facebook effectively endeavors to deny these ladies their access to the American dream of building their brand and business and attempts to deny them their First Amendment and free speech rights.

(And please, you lawyers out there that see this do not argue that Facebook is a private company and can censor whom they please when ever they please. While possibly technically correct we can all see the heinous nature of their prejudice and vial manipulations to promote and support their particular political (Leftist and anti American) world view. Just don’t bother so you do not embarrass yourselves)

https://youtu.be/uCpH9GC2M2o ; 5min

I think it is a sure bet that the president will be signing some level of legislation that tends to guarantee the individuals free speech rather than allowing a massive and as of today self regulated internet business platform that has become ubiquitous in our culture to pick and choose who is allowed free speech and more importantly who is not allowed to have free speech in America today and in the future.

A shameful outrage!

MY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ZUKERBERG:

Mr. Zukerberg, you say that you have about 20,000 employees working on security at Facebook. Security activities like ferreting out “terrorists” and “dangerous speech”.

And Mr. Zukerberg you have plainly stated here that where you come from and where you do business, Silicon Valley, is an extremely Left oriented place related to politics.

Q: Who sets the standards and parameters for these “Security” actions that Facebook takes in the form of banning members and their speech or any other punitive actions including out right banning of individuals or being placed in “Facebook Jail”?

Q: Are the security actions taken by Facebook a function of personal Subjective judgment on the part of the security employees or are there Objective and neutral metrics laid out that govern these security actions I.E. controlling speech or limiting First Amendment Rights of Americans?

Q: How are you working to be as neutral as possible related to free speech and your security employees personal opinions and First Amendment Rights of Americans?

Q: Are you / Facebook focused related to political speech to allow certain speech and limiting other speech based on Facebooks internal political cultural views?

Can you have your people get back to me with these specific answers please? Thank you.

But if they are following the author then its something else.

Most authors follow patterns of writing about a set of subjects they normally do or think they know about.

Why would or should the government care?

Now if they said they were trying to follow the writings of terrorist and thus watch for a pattern or tip off of activity then it might be plausible.

Fromm what I remember of this book, it is insightful. What I did not know when read some 50 years ago, was the setting the author wrote fromm.

Certainly describes what we are seeing now.

Except that Obama spied on journalists. Precedence was set by Obama’s administration. Obama seems to have made spying on journalists “standard practice” in America.

Welcome to Obama’s America, land of the formerly free.

Jim Davis: The clipping services were far different than what is being proposed. Then, it was looking at the press coverage, in general. Now, it is tracking the individual journalists, as persons. This is far different, and smacks of a kind of government overreach and oppressiveness that I find very disgusting.

I don’t think so. Large organizations are always interested in what kind of press they are getting. In the past they would hire “clipping services” that would go through all print media and “clip” any mention of the client. This looks to be the modern digital equivalent.

Not sure how California plans on enforcing the law. Under the wording any one with a website would be subject to its restrictions. Will they become China, and erect a firewall at the border? The Commerce Clause is such an inconvenient thing.