- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
You don't have to cry at funerals, dude.
Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic
- Thread starter Enriku
- Start date
- Status
You don't have to cry at funerals, dude.
Zaryiu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2017
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
"Whaddya mean I can't surround myself with people who blindly agree with me?"
"AHAHAHAHAHAH Stupid Jordan Peterson. Why can't he be profiled for something respectable, like screaming at Pixels?"
And guess what he's still upset about:
"AHAHAHAHAHAH Stupid Jordan Peterson. Why can't he be profiled for something respectable, like screaming at Pixels?"
And guess what he's still upset about:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
"Freeze Peach absolutism didn't force them on people."
Wow, believe it or not, Movie Bob is dumb.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Bob, I'm legitimately starting to think you are steadily becoming dumber on twitter. Let me just quote someone else who put it best about this whole deal.
Legally, the argument centers around Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.
Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230).
The significance of this passage is that a publisher is liable for carrying libels or slanders to an audience, precisely because the publisher of book or magazine, radio broadcast, television show, movie, and so on, has both the power and the duty to study the words of the writer whose words he publishes, check them for libelous matter, and prevent them from being printed if the matter is libelous.
The man who owns the printing press is liable for what his newspaper writers write in his newspaper. The man who runs the radio station can be sued for letting the disk jockey defame someone on the air. They are publishers.
But the telephone company is not. If you hear me over the telephone slander you with ruthless and outrageous slanders, clearly false and clearly harmful to your reputation and to your business, and I accuse you of having a loathsome disease, you simply cannot sue Ma Bell. The telephone operator does not have the authority or the ability to prevent my abuse of the telephone line when I spread defamatory falsehoods.
Section 230, in effect, says that YouTube and Facebook and Spotify an d so on are like the phone company.
They cannot monitor nor ban libelous speech, but in return they cannot be sued by an injured party claiming that their platform negligently allowed a slanderer to defame him. It is a quid pro quo.
The only other option is that the tech giants are like newspaper running a personal ad page: the newspaper can be sued for defamation, but in return has the power and ability to monitor, edit or ban libel in their personals.
Now, the interesting part from a legal point of view about the collusion of the rich and powerful leftwing high-tech giants to stifle the speech of Alex Jones is that the companies have arrogated to themselves the power of the publisher to edit and control the speech of the published, but not accepted the responsibility and liability that comes with it.
Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230).
The significance of this passage is that a publisher is liable for carrying libels or slanders to an audience, precisely because the publisher of book or magazine, radio broadcast, television show, movie, and so on, has both the power and the duty to study the words of the writer whose words he publishes, check them for libelous matter, and prevent them from being printed if the matter is libelous.
The man who owns the printing press is liable for what his newspaper writers write in his newspaper. The man who runs the radio station can be sued for letting the disk jockey defame someone on the air. They are publishers.
But the telephone company is not. If you hear me over the telephone slander you with ruthless and outrageous slanders, clearly false and clearly harmful to your reputation and to your business, and I accuse you of having a loathsome disease, you simply cannot sue Ma Bell. The telephone operator does not have the authority or the ability to prevent my abuse of the telephone line when I spread defamatory falsehoods.
Section 230, in effect, says that YouTube and Facebook and Spotify an d so on are like the phone company.
They cannot monitor nor ban libelous speech, but in return they cannot be sued by an injured party claiming that their platform negligently allowed a slanderer to defame him. It is a quid pro quo.
The only other option is that the tech giants are like newspaper running a personal ad page: the newspaper can be sued for defamation, but in return has the power and ability to monitor, edit or ban libel in their personals.
Now, the interesting part from a legal point of view about the collusion of the rich and powerful leftwing high-tech giants to stifle the speech of Alex Jones is that the companies have arrogated to themselves the power of the publisher to edit and control the speech of the published, but not accepted the responsibility and liability that comes with it.
The catch to all that, movieBob? If they really do go with this responsibility, then that means twitter becomes responsible for YOU.
Hm... i wonder if there's any lawfare trolls who might be interested in some bucks from twitter...
For once Bob sums up my reaction to his tweets. In fact I dare say @Sexy Times Hitler could just put that quote up above ALL of his screencaps and it would never be out of context.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
I mean, it'd save me the trouble of coming up with jokes.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Oh I almost forgot on the "Bob mocking JBP" thing...
Bob, you are literally an insect compared to this man. Comprehend your insignificance, proven by numbers.
Bob, you are literally an insect compared to this man. Comprehend your insignificance, proven by numbers.
Pokemonquistador
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 9, 2017
So what is "Freeze Peach Absolutism?" Because the last time I checked, it was the leftists who were deplatforming people on private communication channels. Is Bob angry that Right Wingers are allowed to traverse public areas without Stasi Policemen beating them with billy clubs?
Also, LOL a Bob laughing at Jordan Peterson. Bearing in mind that one of Jordan's after dinner shits holds more value to the world than all of Bob's output thus far, why is Bob mocking a Skeptic magazine for interviewing J. Peterson? Skeptics can be interested in philosophy and moral heuristics. Hell, they may be more interested than most believers, seeing as how they don't have a holy book that explains everything to them.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2016
Is it simply a massive coincidence that Robert was perusing Michael Shermer's feed the day after we were comparing him to PZ Myers?
Brother Wind
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2017
"Whaddya mean I can't surround myself with people who blindly agree with me?"
Holy goddamn fucking Christ. It's like that Simpsons meme. But instead of "The Children" it's "Literally fucking everybody"
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
HOT TIP: Typing "freeze peach" with any modicum of sincerity makes you appear mentally retarded to people who aren't mentally retarded.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2017
Bob Chipman gets smoked. He tries (keyword being tries) to drag people to his level. He cannot and will not comprehend his insignificance, so he makes himself bigger than he really is.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HEY BOB?
WE WIN.
TAKE YOUR FUCKING L ALREADY.
HEY BOB?
WE WIN.
TAKE YOUR FUCKING L ALREADY.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
No Bobby, Gunn will not touch anything paid for by Disney ever again. But maybe DC can hire him?
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2018
Okay, what the hell does Trump qualify as a fascist for? Does Bob even know what fascism means?
You know what would be satisfying? Gunn being replaced by a black or female director like Ryan Coolger or Greta Gerwig. Hell, Brett Ratner will do anything for the studio and he qualifies to make comedy films.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
I don't know, this guy has a real chip on his shoulder, man.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
This. Is. Beautiful.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2017
He salty.
Ironic considering you been on this for a long time, and have yet to see the hypocrisy behind all of your actions. You're not polite about anything. Your approach is extremely passive aggressive, lacking any subtlety to hide your true feelings about it. If you want to see the chance of redemption in the worst? Maybe, JUST maybe get off fucking Twitter, turn off your goddamn phone, find a guy to talk to, go to a bar, and interact with some human beings. Maybe then you'll see those words do not hold the same weight when being told by you.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2017
I'm expecting blarms level sperging going into overdrive for a long time. May we take advantage of it.
- Status