Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kearsargeII t1_iu4s8q2 wrote

If Jeremy is saying shit that is offensive enough to ban, then might as well ban the NH libertarian party twitter account as it is his sock puppet. As best I can tell, he is the guy behind it, to the point where the stupid shit that account has said nearly split the national libertarian party in an attempt to keep Kauffman from using it. Kauffman won that bit of intraparty infighting, so everything the account has said in the last couple of years probably comes from him.

18

Peeeculiar t1_iu4z0lo wrote

Did he call someone a Jehovah?

−4

nhmo t1_iu50yaa wrote

Replying to kearsargeII (#287,329)

He is certifiably bonkers. He says outrageous stuff that does not even hold up to the least bit of scrutiny but when people point that out, he goes off the wall. He's someone truly living in an alternate version of reality he built up himself.

7

smartest_kobold t1_iu51bx6 wrote

Don't worry, we can still see all his slurs right here on Reddit.com

7

Final_Act6703 OP t1_iu531fm wrote

Replying to nhmo (#289,125)

You understand the Republicans in state government are in direct kahoots with Kauffman? Like that school voucher shit? That is Kauffman’s shit.

Sununu is at least sympathetic to the Mises caucus. At worst, Sununu rubber stamps their ideas.

4

DeerFlyHater t1_iu53knj wrote

I never heard of Kauffman until a couple months ago. It would be nice if I didn't have to hear about him and other rando politicians every day here.

5

wakko666 t1_iu5it1c wrote

Good. He's hateful, bigoted trash.

If only the LP had the good sense to do the same.

23

Final_Act6703 OP t1_iu5k37p wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#290,413)

Twitter screen grab. Yeah! My report (and others) from Sept resulted in Kauffman getting banned today. Considering that twitter belongs to Elon, the timing of the ban going through is interesting. I think they had a bunch of bans in queue that someone just pushed through.

3

NewAccountNumber101 t1_iu63fvm wrote

Replying to she_wants_the_diesel (#295,766)

Haha I should know better than to take a tens of thousands of upvote Reddit post as actual information. Saw it while I was scrolling. He did previously (many many months ago) make a statement that he would be unbanning people. Probably more Musk hot air.

−2

Opal_Pie t1_iu63k3n wrote

I had no idea this dude was real. I saw his sign on the road, and thought it was a joke.

9

enrique-sfw t1_iu6tri4 wrote

Replying to a1234321 (#296,886)

I’ve been around the guy multiple times. I’ve never heard him say anything racist. I don’t know any libertarians that are racist. Sure, a lot say outrageous things but there’s context and nuance to everything. To be fair, the link you provided didn’t show any facts with context. This is why I asked for proof because as far as I can tell, that proof doesn’t exist.

−7

LFRebel_603 t1_iu6voy1 wrote

Replying to 5nd (#295,014)

Do you think he is? Because the person you responded to never mentioned anything about Nazis. The "Hateful, bigoted trash" comment must've triggered something in your brain linking that to Nazis.

1

KrissaKray t1_iu73p3k wrote

So you reported him? I think it’s gross to say those words but going out of your way to report them over it is as childish as that tweet.

8

Final_Act6703 OP t1_iu94z8o wrote

Replying to KrissaKray (#302,733)

I think you have just discovered a major difference between yourself and I.

Conservatives want to flood the airwaves with hate speech, calls to violence, and racism without any responsibility. Their violent rhetoric results in violent attacks and assassination attempts, terrorism, hate crimes, and kidnapping attempts. Meanwhile they all clamber to suppress and censor opinions that are not their own. They say the only legitimate news is the news which is customized around their political beliefs. They promote verifiably false information as gospel, and have adopted a delusion of the masses. This is not aligned with the first amendment of the USA constitution. This is fascism.

Liberals believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and believe in holding people accountable for what they say, especially when their speech hurts someone. This is 100% aligned with the 1st amendment.

These Republican Libertarian men you are rushing to defend (Jason Osborne, Jeremy Kauffman) use the N-word because they enjoy punching down from their positions. They use these terms intentionally to virtue signal to their racist base. It is designed as a subtle reminder of the southern strategy which the Republican Party has embraced since overt racism became “against the rules”.

1

Final_Act6703 OP t1_iu9cilh wrote

Replying to slopeeees (#315,338)

Well, I accurately called it. Any adult who can critically think knew it was coming. Conservatives are all about the racism and violence these days.

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/jgpkqb/elon-musk-twitter-neo-nazis

https://www.pressherald.com/2022/10/28/musk-took-over-twitter-then-debunked-conspiracies-nazi-imagery-racist-tweets-appeared/

https://news.yahoo.com/racist-tweets-quickly-surfaced-musk-142357247.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/28/musk-twitter-racist-posts/

−2

kearsargeII t1_iua3bvm wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#314,744)

Companies by definition cannot violate someone’s first amendment rights, as there is no requirement for companies to be forced to support speech they do not like. It is the equivalent of kicking someone off your property if they are causing a scene, as they have full right to do whatever they want with their property.

The only entity that the first amendment applies to is the government. In literally any other case, there is no expectation that someone is required to give you a platform on their property, and no expectation that people are required to listen to it.

If Kaufman tries to sue, it would be thrown out as frivolous more or less immediately, particularly when twitter shows in its TOS that they can remove anyone for any reason. Same for Reddit. Reddit is not the government. They have full rights over who is and isn’t allowed to use their property. If you want to say things that Reddit does not want, make your own platform.

For that matter what actually might be a violation of first amendment rights would be the government cracking down on people who report things on Twitter, which would be a violation of their first amendment rights. The very idea of being able to sue an individual who “violated first amendment rights” by reporting someone on Twitter is batshit insane, as the idea that someone could violate first amendment rights by exercising their own is assbackwards.

6

kearsargeII t1_iuaw0cv wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#324,658)

It is beyond clear to me that you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Anti discrimination laws only apply to protected classes, like on the basis of race, age over 40, or sex. A company can legally discriminate against someone on the basis of political belief or just straight up thinking they are dumb. The whole cake case was because they were refused because they were homosexual when sexuality is a protected class. Saying stupid shit is not one, and companies are free to associate how they wish with those people. To make those laws relevant, Kauffman would have to prove in court that his twitter ban was because he was white or straight or something along those lines, not because of things that he expressed on the site, and good luck with that.

Again, the first amendment only applies to the government. A private entity is free to choose which speech can appear. A public venue that is privately owned can choose who goes there as much as they want, provided it isn’t in the count of protected class. Theaters are not forced to have some random drunk dude come up on stage, concert halls can decide who they want to have preform. Newspapers can refuse to publish an opinion article. A public message board on private land can remove whatever messages they wish.

Section 230 just removes the publisher from liability on what is published, it does not magically make it so anyone can post what they want. It extends zero rights for people using the service, and it’s existence says nothing about what social media even is. For that matter, if section 230 was in fact repealed, social media sites would have to take a hard line in removing content as to not remove something that leads to criminal acts would open them up to liability, and erring on the site of extreme caution would be the only way to remain solvent.

And Lm fucking AO at that last sentence. Even assuming for a moment that there was a government owned social media site, complaining about someone’s post to admins would fall under free speech. At very best there might be a libel case there if the evidence was totally fabricated, but if it is a matter of opinion there is absolutely fucking zero standing for Kauffman to have a rights violation case against someone for saying something should be done about their posts. To even rule on this, provided there was no outwardly false info, would be a violation of the reporters first amendment rights. This opinion is so fucking stupid I reported your post to make a point. I hope to see from you soon when you get hit with a SLAPP judgement for trying to sue me for this.

2