The censorship thread

43,379 Views | 528 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by sycasey
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:29a, 9/7/25
U.S. Open Orders Broadcasters to Censor Reactions to Trump https://www.benrothenberg.com/p/us-open-donald-trump-mens-final-attendance-visit-appearance-censorship-tv-booing-protest-jannik-sinner-carlos-alcaraz

Here's the key text from the USTA email obtained by Bounces:

"With respect to Broadcast Coverage, the President will be shown on the World Feed and the Ashe Court Feed during the opening anthem ceremony. We ask all broadcasters to refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President's attendance in any capacity, including ENG [Electronic News Gathering] coverage."
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:35p, 9/9/25
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 6:33p, 9/9/25
I don't think Trump would like Liz Churchill's comment.

Trump's aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it Kansas Reflector https://kansasreflector.com/2025/04/26/trumps-aggressive-actions-against-free-speech-speak-a-lot-louder-than-his-words-defending-it/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:30a, 9/13/25


Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:19p, 9/13/25
Right wing cancel culture in full swing now.

Reply Quote
4
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 3:38p, 9/13/25
sycasey said:
Right wing cancel culture in full swing now.

What about deplatforming them on social media and debanking them?
If the right wing is behind all this, shouldn't they go all in like the left?
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18p, 9/14/25
Reply Quote
6
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:30p, 9/14/25
The TMZ dude voluntarily said he would fire any of his employees if they celebrated the assassination but no one asked him. He just felt guilty that his employees were caught cheering in the other room as the news broke. lol.
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:51p, 9/14/25

The Euros do things backwards.
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:13a, 9/15/25
UCLA just took down their entire web page for their "Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)" after their "Race and Equity" Director's online comments about Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:36p, 9/15/25


Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 2:57p, 9/15/25
Any employee fired in California should consult an attorney to see if they can sue both his employer and the appropriate federal employee that instigated his termination.

It may be a termination against public policy (1st Amendment) as well as an unlawful interference with contractual relations by a third party. The fact the employment is at will insulates neither the employer or the interfering party from liability.

I've been out of the game for a spell but I believe that to still be accurate.

I also think every person wrongfully prosecuted by the Justice Dept. should file a malicious prosecution action against the government once the underlying case is resolved in their favor. The best plaintiffs' attorneys in the land will wait in line like they are buying Stones tickets to handle the cases. The Justice Department can't field competent attorneys to defend the cases.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
5
3 edits
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 4:31p, 9/15/25
bearister said:
Any employee fired in California should consult an attorney to see if they can sue both his employer and the appropriate federal employee that instigated his termination.

It may be a termination against public policy (1st Amendment) as well as an unlawful interference with contractual relations by a third party. The fact the employment is at will insulates neither the employer or the interfering party from liability.

I've been out of the game for a spell but I believe that to still be accurate.

I also think every person wrongfully prosecuted by the Justice Dept. should file a malicious prosecution action against the government once the underlying case is resolved in their favor. The best plaintiffs' attorneys in the land will wait in line like they are buying Stones tickets to handle the cases. The Justice Department can't field competent attorneys to defend the cases.


Honest question, can't a private employer just claim the fired party doesn't align with the views and beliefs of the company and get away with firing anyone? Or claim they represented the company poorly/negatively?

I am not a lawyer so I really have no clue the nuances of all this
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:46p, 9/15/25
Reply Quote
6
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:52p, 9/15/25
sycasey said:


This did make me laugh. I feel like this is what most people struggle to understand, free speech doesn't mean there are no social consequences. Just means there aren't legal consequences. Say what you want but when people react you can't be surprised.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 5:01p, 9/15/25
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:


This did make me laugh. I feel like this is what most people struggle to understand, free speech doesn't mean there are no social consequences. Just means there aren't legal consequences. Say what you want but when people react you can't be surprised.

This is 100% the exact same argument left-wing wokesters made when people were getting canceled for racism or sexism or whatever. Woke MAGA is here.
Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 5:21p, 9/15/25
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:


This did make me laugh. I feel like this is what most people struggle to understand, free speech doesn't mean there are no social consequences. Just means there aren't legal consequences. Say what you want but when people react you can't be surprised.


Social credit system?
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:25p, 9/15/25
sycasey said:

I don't think people should be losing their jobs for supporting domestic terrorism. How awful.
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:42p, 9/15/25
I think an employee should be fired for cheering a murder. I don't trust that person and they are gone…….but there is a big difference between that and firing someone who points out that a person is defined by their life, not their death, and getting murdered doesn't automatically qualify you for deification.

In California if you get fired for saying the former, good luck with a jury, but if what you said or wrote is the latter, it's the employer and interferring federal employee that triggered the firing that will need luck with the jury.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:54p, 9/15/25
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:


This did make me laugh. I feel like this is what most people struggle to understand, free speech doesn't mean there are no social consequences. Just means there aren't legal consequences. Say what you want but when people react you can't be surprised.

This is 100% the exact same argument left-wing wokesters made when people were getting canceled for racism or sexism or whatever. Woke MAGA is here.


Hard to imagine that someone could be a centrist eh? I'm only viewed as right wing because the left just keeps moving more and more away from center. Cancel culture is meh on both sides but at least it's a fair fight now
Reply Quote
2
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 5:56p, 9/15/25
Appreciate the clarification.
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:08p, 9/15/25
sycasey said:




George Zimmerman was acquitted because the court determined he acted in self-defense, which is quite different from a public assassination of a political figure. Liberals mix things up all the time, unfortunately.
Reply Quote
2
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 6:36p, 9/15/25
bearister said:
I think an employee should be fired for cheering a murder. I don't trust that person and they are gone…….but there is a big difference between that and firing someone who points out that a person is defined by their life, not their death, and getting murdered doesn't automatically qualify you for deification.

In California if you get fired for saying the former, good luck with a jury, but if what you said or wrote is the latter, it's the employer and interferring federal employee that triggered the firing that will need luck with the jury.


Looks like I was wrong with regard to employer liability:

"Most employment in the United States, including California, operates under "at-will" employment. This means employers can terminate employees for any reason, at any time, and for any manner of actions, including their speech, as long as it doesn't violate other laws.

Somebody currently practicing employment law can analyze it. I could find the answers myself but don't want to spend the time.

I stand by my opinion that a terminated employee could still sue a 3rd party that unjustifiably interfered with the employment relationship and got the employee fired. The average jury in California would find liability.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:43p, 9/15/25
Last week, they said no one on the left is celebrating murder.

This week, they're complaining leftists are being fired for celebrating murder.
Reply Quote
3
Anarchistbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:56p, 9/15/25
Seems to me that any two bit social media "influencer" like Kirk or his Democrat counterpart would be fired immediately from any corporate job
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 8:12p, 9/15/25
oski003 said:
sycasey said:




George Zimmerman was acquitted because the court determined he acted in self-defense, which is quite different from a public assassination of a political figure. Liberals mix things up all the time, unfortunately.

He was acquitted and then had a whole bunch of assault and domestic violence charges brought against him in subsequent years. I think he probably was a pretty aggressive guy and was at least partially at fault for the Trayvon Martin incident.

But honestly, that isn't even the point. The point is whether or not the administration should be using the bully pulpit to try to quell speech it doesn't like, and that conservatives like Vance screamed bloody murder whenever Democrats did exactly the kind of thing he's doing now.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 9:02p, 9/15/25
PAC-10-BEAR said:
Last week, they said no one on the left is celebrating murder.

This week, they're complaining leftists are being fired for celebrating murder.

Reply Quote
4
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:27p, 9/15/25
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:




George Zimmerman was acquitted because the court determined he acted in self-defense, which is quite different from a public assassination of a political figure. Liberals mix things up all the time, unfortunately.

He was acquitted and then had a whole bunch of assault and domestic violence charges brought against him in subsequent years. I think he probably was a pretty aggressive guy and was at least partially at fault for the Trayvon Martin incident.

But honestly, that isn't even the point. The point is whether or not the administration should be using the bully pulpit to try to quell speech it doesn't like, and that conservatives like Vance screamed bloody murder whenever Democrats did exactly the kind of thing he's doing now.


The Democrat couldn't find a better example than someone who was acquitted to juxtapose it to someone who just assassinated a politician. A new point was made, unfortunately, which diminishes the point you were attempting to make. Oh well.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 10:09p, 9/15/25
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:




George Zimmerman was acquitted because the court determined he acted in self-defense, which is quite different from a public assassination of a political figure. Liberals mix things up all the time, unfortunately.

He was acquitted and then had a whole bunch of assault and domestic violence charges brought against him in subsequent years. I think he probably was a pretty aggressive guy and was at least partially at fault for the Trayvon Martin incident.

But honestly, that isn't even the point. The point is whether or not the administration should be using the bully pulpit to try to quell speech it doesn't like, and that conservatives like Vance screamed bloody murder whenever Democrats did exactly the kind of thing he's doing now.


The Democrat couldn't find a better example than someone who was acquitted to juxtapose it to someone who just assassinated a politician. A new point was made, unfortunately, which diminishes the point you were attempting to make. Oh well.

Yawn. I don't care about whatever minor point you are trying to score here, so I'll just allow it to you.

Tim Miller is also not a Democrat, by the way. He's a NeverTrump Republican.
Reply Quote
1
ACC Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:55p, 9/15/25
Both parties will try to convince you hate speech is illegal in their never ending quest to subvert the First Amendment


Reply Quote
2
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:11a, 9/16/25
Reply Quote
3
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22a, 9/16/25
"President Trump accused The New York Times and four of its reporters of defaming him ahead of the 2024 election, claiming that a series of articles sought to undermine his candidacy and disparage his reputation as a successful businessman.

In a lawsuit filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Mr. Trump said the articles and a book published by two of the journalists were "specifically designed to try and damage President Trump's business, personal and political reputation."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/media/trump-lawsuit-new-york-times.html

Trump will encounter a few difficulties with the litigation:

1. Truth is a defense;
2. Trump's reputation is relevant to determining his damages so there will exhaustive discovery regarding what his reputation is;
3. Trump will have to sit for a deposition and testify as a witness in court;
4. Trump will find it difficult, if not impossible, to find elite counsel to represent him in the case; and
5. Upon successful resolution of the matter in favor of the defendants, Trump will face a malicious prosecution action.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
3
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 9:24a, 9/16/25
PAC-10-BEAR said:
sycasey said:
Right wing cancel culture in full swing now.

What about deplatforming them on social media and debanking them?
If the right wing is behind all this, shouldn't they go all in like the left?


WHAT KIND OF A MAGA WORLD MELTDOWN WOULD THERE BE IF KAMALA HARRIS HAD MADE THE SAME THREAT?

GET REAL.


Reply Quote
2
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 9:27a, 9/16/25
bearister said:
"President Trump accused The New York Times and four of its reporters of defaming him ahead of the 2024 election, claiming that a series of articles sought to undermine his candidacy and disparage his reputation as a successful businessman.

In a lawsuit filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Mr. Trump said the articles and a book published by two of the journalists were "specifically designed to try and damage President Trump's business, personal and political reputation."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/media/trump-lawsuit-new-york-times.html

Trump will encounter a few difficulties with the litigation:

1. Truth is a defense;
2. Trump's reputation is relevant to determining his damages so there will exhaustive discovery regarding what his reputation is;
3. Trump will have to sit for a deposition and testify as a witness in court;
4. Trump will find it difficult, if not impossible, to find elite counsel to represent him in the case; and
5. Upon successful resolution of the matter in favor of the defendants, Trump will face a malicious prosecution action.

But this assumes that this suit is actually "for real". Like a ton of them it will be slow walked so that #3.4.5 don't matter. Eventually it will quietly be dropped.

But it had the impact. Flood the zone. Generate headlines. Feed red meat to the base who will move onto the next outrage in 24 hours. Rinse and Repeat.

The real task for the future, should the republic survive, is putting place a number of rules (and amendments?) that stop this from ever happening in the future. Consider a world in which Pritzer is President and he decideds to engage in analogous behavior - suing Fox at the drop of a hat or punishing everyone who posts nasty memes about Jimmy Carter or BHO.

Reply Quote
4
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:20a, 9/16/25
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.