Wordpress banned Chateau Heartiste

[RangerMIke]

The SCOTUS did not rule that Super PACS have the same rights as individuals.

They ruled that corporations and unions do. Although I disagree with that ruling.

I did not say Super PACs... I said PACs... and yes they did rule that PACs were entitled to free speech protection, but are limited on what they can collect from individual donors. As far as I know the USSC has not ruled on Super PACS since technically they did not exist until after Citizens United.

A Super PAC is a committee not really an organization and they can advertise on 'issues' they can even pay for ads for an issue they support, however they are NOT allowed to endorse or support in any way any particular candidate. They can raise unlimited amounts of money from any individual. "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" was a PAC that operated like a Super PAC before they really existed, and they accepted contributions over legal limits. They technically did not support GHW Bush, all they did was attack then Senator Kerry's record in Vietnam, and his protest actions after he returned from Vietnam. It was defacto support for Bush and it was VERY effective and mostly legal, but they did have to pay a fine, which was WAY less than what they collected.

A PAC can not coordinate with a campaign, but they are allowed to donate money to individual campaigns and parties, but these have contribution limits. I actually worked on McCain's 2008 campaign and again on Romney's campaign in 2012. I can tell you that campaigns are VERY careful with what they can and can not do with PACs... they can't have anything at all to do with S-PACs... the fastest way to get removed from a political campaign is to even suggest you MIGHT have contact with a S-PAC. Super PACS didn't even really exist during the 2008 election, but you can argue that Citizens United created them. and they were around in 2012 during the Romney campaign.

One of the criticisms I heard during the Romney campaign was that Mitt was overly concerned with Super PACs, that he was overly cautious, and to be honest... I think he was. They would frequently go out of their way to make sure that there was no perception of working with them AT ALL, even going so far as to pull ad campaigns out of markets we had planned to run when a Super PAC started running ads in that same market with even a similar message. We basically hamstrung ourselves in a lot of markets, and while I am not sure if it would have had an effect on the results... it certainly didn't help.

During the last election, IMO since I did not work for either campaign, Super PACs had little impact on the results. Super PACS supporting Clinton actually raised more money than Trump.... by almost 3:1. Overall, Clinton raised a half a billion more in 2016, than Trump and she spent almost every dollar, while Trump who raised just under a billion after the election he still had about $7 million left over. Trump actually ran a very efficient campaign. You can argue that the Super PACS supporting Trump were more effective... but I'm really not sure that it was that they did a good job of shaping the narrative as S-PACs support Hillary were just bloody awful. Trumps S-Pacs mercilessly attacked Hillary on everything... Clinton's S-PACs ran ads about how great it would be to have a chick in the White House, or attack ads on Trump critical of things he did with women which were arguably no worst than Bill Clinton... it was really stupid because all it did was ask the question who is worst... the guy who had a misogynistic attitude about women, or the women that tolerated the same behavior from her husband... and at least Trump paid off his chicks... while Bill and Hillary just tossed them under the bus. Hillary's S-PACS just wasted money in markets they already owned.

 

[The Spirit Within]

I am glad that Heartiste was banned from WordPress. He promoted a hateful ideology that basically encouraged racist white males that in order to become more attractive to women, they should become more toxically masculine. On top of that, he promoted dread game which is basically a passive aggressive form of rape. Just because a girl puts you in the friend zone, it doesn’t make it ok for you to ignore her or start dating other women. The ethical thing to do is to be there for her and respect her wishes. It might take months or years but eventually she will learn what a nice guy you are and she will want to be with you.

And Heartiste was a borderline nazi Republican. Thankfully, as more and more immigrants stream into America, red states like Texas and Florida will flip to blue and the Democrats will become the permanent Natural Governing Party while the voting power of racist white males becomes diminished.

Hate speech is not free speech and I am glad that Heartiste and his followers have been effectively banished. Their hateful ideology has no place on the internet.

 

[Spaz]

I am glad that Heartiste was banned from WordPress. He promoted a hateful ideology that basically encouraged racist white males that in order to become more attractive to women, they should become more toxically masculine. On top of that, he promoted dread game which is basically a passive aggressive form of rape. Just because a girl puts you in the friend zone, it doesn’t make it ok for you to ignore her or start dating other women. The ethical thing to do is to be there for her and respect her wishes. It might take months or years but eventually she will learn what a nice guy you are and she will want to be with you.

And Heartiste was a borderline nazi Republican. Thankfully, as more and more immigrants stream into America, red states like Texas and Florida will flip to blue and the Democrats will become the permanent Natural Governing Party while the voting power of racist white males becomes diminished.

Hate speech is not free speech and I am glad that Heartiste and his followers have been effectively banished. Their hateful ideology has no place on the internet.

Next time if you wish to bait, at least do it properly.

It's so obvious that only a fanatical idiot is going to jump at this and start debating ur points.

 

[The Spirit Within]

Next time if you wish to bait, at least do it properly.

It's so obvious that only a fanatical idiot is going to jump at this and start debating ur points.

I used to debate Heartiste on his hate site. Now he and his brown shirts are banished for good. And good riddance.

I look forward to the 2020 election when Kamala Harris defeats Drumpf in a 500 electoral vote landslide.

 

[The Spirit Within]

Doesn't hold weight, they reference the First Amendment in their decision and being able to use social media. And again, you neglected to mention that they claim in public to be a platform in public and in court they hide behind publishing laws. You can't have it both ways. I included references to other cases as well, not just that particular case.

Arguing a point on semantics is not arguing a point. They have a defacto stranglehold on the digital public platform, whether you choose to admit it or not. If you're going to argue they are a private company and can do what they want, then other private companies can discriminate as they see fit. Either there is freedom of association or there isn't, you can't pick and choose. If you're going to argue they are a platform and not subject to publishing responsibilities or vice versa, then they can't use those arguments in court that go to the opposite of what they claim in public.

If all voices cannot be heard when a corporation of global status has a stranglehold on a market where public opinions are shared and conversations are encouraged, they have a monopoly and should be broken up.

Hate speech is not free speech and Wordpress was right in banning CH. Just as all of social media was right in banning Alex Jones. And the domain registrars were right in seizing Andrew Anglin’s DailyStormer domain name and banishing him to the dark web where he will whither and rot.

America is a land of immigrants and diversity is our strength.

 

[RangerMIke]

Well they are illegally operating as a Super PAC, but are a corporation, which is my original point.

Swift Boat Vets for Truth was a PAC. And as such was required to comply with campaign finance laws... they didn't.... they were fined. The GOP learned that the problem with SBVFT was that it was organized as a PAC, so they formed Citizens United which never claimed to be a PAC, it certainly was a 'defacto' PAC, but technically was not subject to campaign finance laws. The final piece was when Alito replaced O'Conner on the USSC which meant that the court make-up would favorably rule.

There was no such thing as an 'entity' called a Super PAC until after the Citizens United ruling. A "Super PAC" is a committee that forms to promote a idea though the exercise of free speech, if that free speech happens to help a political campaign or party that is considered serendipity. As long the "Super PAC" does not directly support a candidate or party, then they are not subject to campaign finance laws.

The Citizens Unity ruling solved two issues: (1) The FEC has the right to regulate campaign financing for CONTRIBUTIONS to a campaign or party (2) The FEC has no jurisdiction on any entity that is not an official PAC and/or does not DIRECTLY contribute to a candidate or political party.

The Citizens Unity ruling also extended free speech rights for organizations as a collective right, meaning they could not be regulated as an organization or company. Government can not regulate the free speech of individuals, they can and do regulate what companies claim or say.

 

[highSpeed]

Hate speech is not free speech and Wordpress was right in banning CH. Just as all of social media was right in banning Alex Jones. And the domain registrars were right in seizing Andrew Anglin’s DailyStormer domain name and banishing him to the dark web where he will whither and rot.

America is a land of immigrants and diversity is our strength.

There is no such thing as "hate" speech, there is only speech you don't want to hear. Unless you are calling people to violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater, you can say pretty much whatever you want. Alex Jones actually got things right from time to time, perhaps even more so than CNN in many cases, so please, stop with the terrible examples. People like you are the problem, oh, take away this, take away that, ban people from this or that, you don't realize how dangerous thoughts like yours are. From this we can ban religion, literally any group of people that run afoul of your "hate" detectors.

America is a land of European immigrants. America only become this "melting" pot after the immigration reform act of 1965, which started to encourage and choose 3rd world immigration over European immigration. Diversity is not our strength, that is a straw man argument that everyone throws out to give people the warm and fuzzies. Diversity is like a centipede with a bunch of busted legs, unless all of them are going in the same direction, that centipede is going nowhere fast.

 

[highSpeed]

Swift Boat Vets for Truth was a PAC. And as such was required to comply with campaign finance laws... they didn't.... they were fined. The GOP learned that the problem with SBVFT was that it was organized as a PAC, so they formed Citizens United which never claimed to be a PAC, it certainly was a 'defacto' PAC, but technically was not subject to campaign finance laws. The final piece was when Alito replaced O'Conner on the USSC which meant that the court make-up would favorably rule.

There was no such thing as an 'entity' called a Super PAC until after the Citizens United ruling. A "Super PAC" is a committee that forms to promote a idea though the exercise of free speech, if that free speech happens to help a political campaign or party that is considered serendipity. As long the "Super PAC" does not directly support a candidate or party, then they are not subject to campaign finance laws.

The Citizens Unity ruling solved two issues: (1) The FEC has the right to regulate campaign financing for CONTRIBUTIONS to a campaign or party (2) The FEC has no jurisdiction on any entity that is not an official PAC and/or does not DIRECTLY contribute to a candidate or political party.

The Citizens Unity ruling also extended free speech rights for organizations as a collective right, meaning they could not be regulated as an organization or company. Government can not regulate the free speech of individuals, they can and do regulate what companies claim or say.

Again, you're splitting hairs. Why is it so tough for you to admit that these technocrats lean way to the left and support fully, what the left wants? Them having this monopoly on communication gives them the ability to donate services to the left in support of their causes and candidates. The government will most likely never break them up, because the government leans more and more left all the time, so they'd most likely never have the votes to do so, unless there was a drastic change in government.

We are on a train to fascism and communism, no doubt about it.

 

[RangerMIke]

At the end of the day, when a corporation denies services to political entities but donates those services to other political entities, they are making donations in large enough amounts that is only legal for Super PACs.

Sorry not correct.... IAW current US Laws.

Corporations are not PACs... they are not Super PACs, they are private corporations guided by the articles of incorporation or partnership agreements in whatever State they are formed, or by whatever treaty obligation we follow with a particular country by the US State Department, if they do not have a wholly owned subsidiary formed in some State or territory of in the United States.

The USSC has ruled that private corporations have the individual right to free speech, that means they can say or choice not to say whatever the fvck they want. AGAIN Citizens United drew a clear line that said, political speech does not fall under the purview of election campaign laws UNLESS there is a direct contribution to a campaign or party. That's it.... that is reality. What you have posted above is not true. Incidental or serendipitous support of a particular cause can not be regulated by the FEC. The government has no jurisdiction over free speech... only campaign contributions.

You want the government to force Facebook to host content they do not agree with, fine.... try and get the law changed. But if by some miracle this gets the to USSC and they set aside Citizens United then I would consider that a good thing. Corporations should not have individual rights.

 

[RangerMIke]

Again, you're splitting hairs. Why is it so tough for you to admit that these technocrats lean way to the left and support fully, what the left wants? Them having this monopoly on communication gives them the ability to donate services to the left in support of their causes and candidates. The government will most likely never break them up, because the government leans more and more left all the time, so they'd most likely never have the votes to do so, unless there was a drastic change in government.

We are on a train to fascism and communism, no doubt about it.

I am not splitting hairs... I am telling you what is and is not allowed by current laws. We can no more force the Koch brothers to contribute to liberal causes than we can force the Facebook owners to support conservative ones. I never said that what you call "technocrats' do not lean to the left, what I said is since Citizens United allows companies to take on the political flavor of the owners of the company, and since now companies have individual rights to free speech they can allow or not allow, anything they want as a right to free speech. Citizens United was a two edged sword... while it allowed unlimited money to flow into Conservative campaigns, it also allowed liberals to do the same fvcking thing.

Don't blame me for pointing out reality... blame the judges on the USSC that were appointed by Republicans, they are the ones that gave us this steaming pile of sh!t. Judicial activism, be it leftist or right wing, is ALWAYS wrong, and ALWAYS leans to unintended consequences.

I do agree that the US is drifting to the left... and the reason this is happening is because conservatives have abandoned freedom as a guiding principle and will not allow free market capitalism work properly. Conservatives should have allowed the big banks to fail rather then bailing them out... this is why we got Obama. Instead of hauling off the bankers in orange suits, who perpetrated a fraud on investors causing the 2008 fiscal meltdown, we handed them golden parachutes with taxpayer money. If you embrace FREEDOM, then you have ignore all the bullsh!t from traditional conservatives. If a guy want's to cut off his pecker, say he's a lady and use the women's restroom... SO THE FVCK WHAT. If two dudes want to get married and fvck each other in the @ss, SO THE FVCK WHAT.

 

[RangerMIke]

Providing services to a particular political party or campaign is NOT free speech.

I agree.... but that is not what is happening. Supporting a ideology that a particular party or campaign also happens to support is free speech. Now if ever Facebook or any other social media platform decides they are banning Republicans and Republican candidates from their platforms because of party affiliation, while also allowing Democrats and Democratic candidates access, then that would clearly be a violation. But just because Republicans happen to support a ban on gay marriage, if the owners of a company decide they will not allow content attacking gay marriage, they can legally do this.

AGAIN Citizens United drew a distinction between what is political campaign and party support and what is ideology.... If you are saying that ideology defines party affiliation then I am inclined to agree, but it is not always the case. For example, the Log Cabin Republicans are a primarily a collection of gay men and women that happen to support gay marriage and gay rights, even though they are Republicans and the Republican party, as a platform opposes gay marriage. So ideology can vary with party affiliation.

 

[highSpeed]

I am not splitting hairs... I am telling you what is and is not allowed by current laws. We can no more force the Koch brothers to contribute to liberal causes than we can force the Facebook owners to support conservative ones. I never said that what you call "technocrats' do not lean to the left, what I said is since Citizens United allows companies to take on the political flavor of the owners of the company, and since now companies have individual rights to free speech they can allow or not allow, anything they want as a right to free speech. Citizens United was a two edged sword... while it allowed unlimited money to flow into Conservative campaigns, it also allowed liberals to do the same fvcking thing.

Don't blame me for pointing out reality... blame the judges on the USSC that were appointed by Republicans, they are the ones that gave us this steaming pile of sh!t. Judicial activism, be it leftist or right wing, is ALWAYS wrong, and ALWAYS leans to unintended consequences.

I do agree that the US is drifting to the left... and the reason this is happening is because conservatives have abandoned freedom as a guiding principle and will not allow free market capitalism work properly. Conservatives should have allowed the big banks to fail rather then bailing them out... this is why we got Obama. Instead of hauling off the bankers in orange suits, who perpetrated a fraud on investors causing the 2008 fiscal meltdown, we handed them golden parachutes with taxpayer money. If you embrace FREEDOM, then you have ignore all the bullsh!t from traditional conservatives. If a guy want's to cut off his pecker, say he's a lady and use the women's restroom... SO THE FVCK WHAT. If two dudes want to get married and fvck each other in the @ss, SO THE FVCK WHAT.

The Koch brothers donating their money, which is capped, is way different than the de facto public square that companies like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and others now occupy. The public square of old is simply categorically different than the digital public square, as your reach is exponentially larger than the traditional public square.

The Koch brothers can only donate or give away so much of their resources to a political candidate by law and they're not stupid, they're going to take care of both sides so that if the other side gets in, they're still going to be allowed to operate. Is it even possible to quantify, in dollars, how much value all of these platforms going further and further left is worth to the fascist, communists now masquerading as "progressive" and "liberal"? Whatever it is, it's worth way more, by a number of factors, than whatever the Koch brothers could donate to their causes. It's like looking at an entire bucket filled with water and thinking that putting another drop in there is going to make a difference, spoiler alert, it's not!

Judicial activism is not only wrong, it's treasonous, it's short circuiting and defeating the will and vote of the people. And by the way, the proper way to operate is to default to conservative mode and go liberal when necessary, but by defaulting to liberal, you get sucked into communism land before you know it. Honestly, how many judicial activists do you see going right? You guessed it, not many.

The only area we agree on is the fact that the banks needed to fail, bankers needed to goto jail and so did the politicians that passed those silly laws regarding red-lining. It is those laws that the bankers used to justify stopping making rational, realistic decisions about home loans and use SJW logic to allow people with 40k a year jobs to get 400k home loans. Oh, you can't stop someone from getting a home loan, that's bigoted, racist, misogynistic, blah, blah, blah.

As far as queers and transgenders go, on the surface, yes, I could give a crap what someone does in the privacy of your own home. However, when you start legislating morality, about what I, as another member of the public, have to put up with to allow you to "live" your lifestyle, that's when we're off track. Hate crimes are bullsh*t, plain and simple. Someone murders a gay person, it's murder, not a hate crime. Someone beats up a transgender, it's assault, not a hate crime. This encourages playing the victim card and encourages a totem pole of value, where usually whites end up at the bottom. Forcing your kids to have to listen to drag queen story time because that's now labeled as "acceptance" of their lifestyle is wrong. Putting out sex-ed classes where they literally reference fisting is wrong and again, brought to you by "liberals". Where this "activism" is taking us is right to the gates of hell.

You throw out right activism and I don't see that anywhere. The main problem with this country is communists and fascists masquarading as "liberals" and "progressives" that are using our own system against us. In literally 2 generations, these "activists' are literally on the cusp of destroying this country.

And you quibble over straw man arguments about it not being a freedom of speech 1st amendment issue but a different label that better suits your argument. At the heart of the matter of many of these issues is the lack of freedom of speech. Whether it is them destroying your career or the government throwing you in jail for saying something unpopular, you are part of the problem when you tacitly support this mentality. If I destroy your career, I've pretty much ended your ability to be effective and I've shut down your voice. If the government throws you in jail for saying something something unpopular, the outcome is the same. So save me the argument on it's only violating your freedom of speech if they throw you in jail.

 

[RangerMIke]

It IS what is happening. They are banning based on the political ideologies.

They are free to support or ignore any ideology they want as a function for free speech. It LEGALLY does not become a political ideology until there is a direct contribution and support to a specific political candidate or party. I do not disagree with you, IMO I think it is wrong to disallow something just because you don't happen to agree with it, especially if you market your service as a free speech platform. What they are doing is wrong... but it is still legal. There are plenty of things I think are wrong, but are still legal. The solution is to change the laws or enforce existing laws against unfair competition.

If we start going around limiting freedom as a solution to problems, we become no better than liberals... and when true freedom loving conservatives start acting like controlling liberals then there is no differentiation... and that is how we get Obama. McCain would have been a much better President than Obama, but he lost because the GOP under Bush, ignored long standing Republican values by doubling spending, doubling the national debt, started wars we did not have to fight and ignored prudent fiscal policy leading to the 2008 recession. In addition, he picked a running mate with questionable ability because he felt like he needed to give a nod to social conservatives, that really do not value freedom, and he picked a woman, not because she was the best qualified, but because she was a chick.... basically abandoning the principles the GOP was founded on and that is people should be judged on the content or their character and ability, not their gender, race, or skin color. Let liberals play identity politics.. conservatives should not do this... and when they do, the distinctions vanish... and all we have are shades of grey to decide from.

 

[DonJoel]

Does he have a new site yet? I liked his PUA stuff. He can just get a host somewhere and run his own wordpress.

 

[RangerMIke]

BUT, there is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between the corporation stating it themselves, and the corporation donating services to campaigns and parties.

THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Which is why your "freedom of speech" has nothing to do with the issue.

The courts have ruled that as long as there is no DIRECT support or coordination of a campaign or party, anything you do are say is protected by the 1st Amendment and not subject to regulation by the FEC. The courts have also ruled that 1st Amendment protection extends to companies and committees. Let me say again... I DO NOT agree with this. But it is reality... sitting around complaining about this is pointless. The courts have also rejected arguments that social media is a public space.

 

[samspade]

And Heartiste was a borderline nazi Republican.

He is Jewish, his name is James C. Weidmann.

 

[redskinsfan92]

Got some news to share! He is currently on gab avcording to a tweet by Roosh

 

[samspade]

Got some news to share! He is currently on gab avcording to a tweet by Roosh View attachment 2793

Interesting. I wonder what Roosh thinks of CH now that the former is a Bible-banger. And vice versa. Ah, well, not my problem I guess.