[Fortis]

I am sure roosh has a plan but we can all take part by severely reducing the number of inflammatory things we say. Let's help eachother out here since we all value this forum greatly.

[fokker]

Forney did a livestream earlier about this:

[Suits]

(05-04-2018 01:52 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 10:29 PM)Suits Wrote:  

The 1st amendment was written into law to prevent the government from restricting speech.

Here's the actual text:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for.

This doesn't mean much.

Just like any of the amendments, the 1st amendment has thousands of pages of judicial interpretation and precedence. 200+ years worth. ALL of that applies to the question. That's how constitutional law works.

I believe that in practice, if a company that controls the means of expression (writing or posting) refuses to provide their services to someone *because they disagree with the content being expressed* then they are damned close to a lawsuit. If you're the only printer in town and you refuse to print somebody's book on the catholic faith because you are a protestant, you can and will be sued and probably lose. You are actively surpassing their right to be heard. Your property rights are secondary in this case.

Godaddy is hard to sue because, it has a ton of competition.

You're absolutely right about all of this. However, on independent issues (that are not identical to a Constitutional case that has already been resolved), it's put up or shut up.

Think your Constitutional Rights have been violated? Well, they haven't until the Supreme Court agrees with you.

[BelyyTigr]

Perhaps GoDaddy would like to explain why they host Islamqa.info.
Its the most visited Islamic site in the World. And it openly says that anyone who leaves Islam should be killed.
And other such extremist garbage.

The internet's Establishment is basically one giant instrument of globalist-liberal propaganda.
I've seen the following:-

1)criticise Islamists who say they will push Christians out of Rome(as they did Constantinopol) = ban from Twitter
2)link UN, WHO, Greenpeace articles re endocrine disruptors causing homosexuality= Facebook ban
3)link passages of the bible and British govt stats re homosexualism = Facebook ban.
4)pro Russia blog = ban.
5)criticise homosexuals/Islamists in comments section = Youtube ban (successfully appealed).
6)Google's kill switch on news it doesn't like. Such news effectively disappears - even where court gagging orders don't apply.

There's also shadow bans where if you challenge the globalist-liberal agenda, your post will go WAY down in search results, so far down that it will never be seen. Happens in Facebook, Twitter, the lot.

[Mage]

Maybe Roosh should backup this forum on a .ru or other non western domain? Just in case?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I don't think that Return Of Kings is next.

But you never know - the funny part is that most of the mainstream ire was rised by two things:

1) The Article about the Culture of Critique

2) The plan for like-minded masculine men of all races across the world to meet up potentially start organizing in real life.

The ironic rape-article was just used as an excuse.

No idea, whether things can be salvaged - I personally would invite some Red Pill Israelis to write articles about things on the ground - feminism, leftism in their country - plus stay away from those two points above.

The Youtube channel of Altright.com is still online, so it's not a total scrub. Has their domain been taken away or can they simply move to another provider?

[Skank_Hunt]

Godaddy is probably the worst registrar if you want to keep your domain. Internet.bs is better off the top of my head. Then there are other more underground registrars which flat out ignore complaints, for how long who knows.

In the case of this site, I think it will have to be switching the ".com" to ".xyz" ".bz" etc. until those get seized, registering a new one etc., a game of cat and mouse. Then they will go after the actual host, so it's again recommended to have a host that wipes their ass with letters like that. I think a .ru would be cool. Maybe some malicious actor would take action now to register as many of the unregistered alternative domains for this site and rooshv.com, that's something also to consider.

[gework]

I see he owns the domain name roo.sh, administered by the United Kingdom from which he is banned from entering

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(05-04-2018 03:36 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

I am sure roosh has a plan but we can all take part by severely reducing the number of inflammatory things we say. Let's help eachother out here since we all value this forum greatly.

Self-censorship essentially means the other side wins because they've bullied you into submission.

These people are not the Morality Police. Who the fuck are they to say what's right and what's wrong? I'd advise going about our business as usual.

And the reason for that is that once you're in the cross-hairs, then ANYTHING you say can be judged as "inflammatory." For example, we might think they'd come for the Forum because of something one of us wrote, but it's more likely someone would be offended by those silly cartoons we put in thread titled "Memes and gifs that will instantly trigger leftists."

If anything, all sites related to Black Lives Matter should be banned because they've incited more violence than Richard Spencer.

GoDaddy needs to be taken to court for discrimination based on "creed" -- a concept you don't hear much about today, but which should be revived. It means discrimination based on belief systems. Who is to say what belief system is correct? Corporate boards? SJWs? I don't think so.

There's got to be a lawyer out there who will nail these spineless bastards to the wall.

[Baphomet]

(05-04-2018 07:49 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Self-censorship essentially means the other side wins because they've bullied you into submission.

These people are not the Morality Police. Who the fuck are they to say what's right and what's wrong? I'd advise going about our business as usual.

And the reason for that is that once you're in the cross-hairs, then ANYTHING you say can be judged as "inflammatory." For example, we might think they'd come for the Forum because of something one of us wrote, but it's more likely someone would be offended by those silly cartoons we put in thread titled "Memes and gifs that will instantly trigger leftists."

If anything, all sites related to Black Lives Matter should be banned because they've incited more violence than Richard Spencer.

GoDaddy needs to be taken to court for discrimination based on "creed" -- a concept you don't hear much about today, but which should be revived. It means discrimination based on belief systems. Who is to say what belief system is correct? Corporate boards? SJWs? I don't think so.

There's got to be a lawyer out there who will nail these spineless bastards to the wall.

I seem to recall that we have several highly repped forum members who are lawyers.

[flulrich]

(05-03-2018 10:38 PM)Ice Man Wrote:  

To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.

This article says "Marsh v. Alabama". You can't restrict speech as a private company if you open up your company property to the public.

https://medium.com/@sevvie/medium-made-a...c70bdeea28

I am no legal scholar, but that article provides at least some clues that "muh private company", the favorite argument on the left, is actually NOT automatically valid.

The left thinks they can get away with the shite they pull because they see themselves as their private little empire that no one should dare intrude upon, but actually they get away with it because no one has really had the gall (and money) to sue them.

[heavy]

I'm just glad America has proven to have the Balls for these fights over censorship. Trump was a sign of this. Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are signs of this. Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin.

We've had censorship for 60 years. We had 3 big companies spewing left wing bull shit since, I don't know, the 60s. Now everyone thinks there's a problem with two different sides to every story and I say, it's damn better than having just one side of every story like we had in the 90s. There's a reason Rush was a phoenix rising as the king of radio, tv, and media when I was a kid.

I think the average person gets anxiety at the thought of censorship (Joe Rogan offers these sentiments of "interesting times"). As a Rush-baby, I became a young adult thinking I was part of a fragmented, rag tag group of libertarian-ish individuals taking on the army of PC brainwashed media. Nowadays I'm heartened. Sure, they'll still have their slanted view of Charlottesville, but at least I'm hearing conversations from the other side.

Keep fighting the good fight. It will never end.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(05-04-2018 08:31 AM)flulrich Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 10:38 PM)Ice Man Wrote:  

To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.

This article says "Marsh v. Alabama". You can't restrict speech as a private company if you open up your company property to the public.

https://medium.com/@sevvie/medium-made-a...c70bdeea28

I am no legal scholar, but that article provides at least some clues that "muh private company", the favorite argument on the left, is actually NOT automatically valid.

The left thinks they can get away with the shite they pull because they see themselves as their private little empire that no one should dare intrude upon, but actually they get away with it because no one has really had the gall (and money) to sue them.

Great find! It's also worth repeating (although it's a cliche) that "muh private company" also goes out the window when these idiots complain about Chick-Fil-A, bakeries who won't bake gay cakes, and any business who wants to keep out slobs and sluts dressed inappropriately.

[Sherman]

I personally hate censorship and the "hate speech" bs, but I don't care if racists are being kicked off the Internet. As long as it is not being done by the government, but by private companies, it is fair game.

Since this is a men's forum, I think the most critical issue facing all of us is the war against men and the fact that many of us have concluded we can't have wives and a family because of the bias that has been put into the law. This is something we should all be interested in and these other agendas are a diversion from our real concerns.

[Extinguished Light]

ROK and all other dissident right sites need to have backup domains and plans for quickly migrating hosts if needed ready to go.

[Higgs Bosun]

(05-03-2018 10:38 PM)Ice Man Wrote:  

When people say "why isn't Trump doing something about this?", can they articulate what they think the president himself can do?

When people say this is a "violation of the First Amendment" can they please articulate exactly what laws are being broken by GoDaddy in order for them to be prosecuted or face a civil suit?

It is very easy just to throw these statements out there but almost no one can say which laws are being broken. Just saying "violating 1A" isn't enough, not least because well it isn't a 1A violation, 1A has nothing to do with this. It would be great if it did (maybe?), but it doesn't.

To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.

You are aware that Trump is the President of the United States, and as the de-facto leader of the party currently in power has the ability to drive the legislative agenda, no? Further, you are aware that one of the principal advantages of holding the presidency is using it as the so called "bully pulpit" to influence the direction of public discourse, right?

I guess either you are not aware of these basic concepts, or your attempt to absolve Trump of any fault from not doing a thing to defend free speech for the Right is the most naked form of shilling. There's a shit ton of stuff Trump could be doing to protect free speech, but he's not doing any of them. Maybe it's just as well, given that the one action the Trump admin has done in relation to internet freedom has been the deleterious abolition of net neutrality by the corporate stooge IRT Ajit Pai.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-04-2018 08:50 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

I personally hate censorship and the "hate speech" bs, but I don't care if racists are being kicked off the Internet. As long as it is not being done by the government, but by private companies, it is fair game.

Since this is a men's forum, I think the most critical issue facing all of us is the war against men and the fact that many of us have concluded we can't have wives and a family because of the bias that has been put into the law. This is something we should all be interested in and these other agendas are a diversion from our real concerns.

Yeah - your definition of racist is a Pepe meme and someone saying that Islam is not a Religion of Peace. The term racism is a slippery slope doctrine - ultimately it can be used to ban everyone since the term was actually even created by the communists for this specific task.

[MMX2010]

(05-04-2018 03:40 AM)fokker Wrote:  

Forney did a livestream earlier about this:

1.5 hour livestreams deserve a brief two-paragraph summary.

[MMX2010]

Suits Wrote:

Because my statement is still easily accessible on page one of this thread in simple, easy to understand English.

I've got a different impression.

One, I didn't misrepresent your words, nor misunderstand your statement at all.

Two, you're part of a group of people who believe that the races are equal.

Three, the past two years have been really crappy for you, given that the Alt-right and many others who believe in Race Racism have made unobstructed headway in getting their ideas across.

Four, theoretically speaking, you could stop the Alt-right by directly debating them and pointing out their lies. But, practically speaking, you don't have the courage nor knowledge to do this.

So, five, you're rationalizing the elimination of a political website you disagree with because "private company" and "not government". (Nevermind that Kristen Clarke is a government employee who pressured the private company, because Reasons.)

[MMX2010]

Sherman Wrote:

I personally hate censorship and the "hate speech" bs, but I don't care if racists are being kicked off the Internet. As long as it is not being done by the government, but by private companies, it is fair game.

Surely, you read the celebratory tweet of @KristenClarkeJD the individual most responsible for shutting down Richard Spencer's site. And surely you noticed her occupation?

[TigerMandingo]

(05-04-2018 09:42 AM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

You are aware that Trump is the President of the United States, and as the de-facto leader of the party currently in power has the ability to drive the legislative agenda, no? Further, you are aware that one of the principal advantages of holding the presidency is using it as the so called "bully pulpit" to influence the direction of public discourse, right?

Agreed. Trump is a lame duck. Of issues that are important to men like us, I don't think his presidency will have achieved much, if anything at all. First the Cosby thing, now this. The anti-male agenda continues ahead full steam. Let Trump tweet all day and distract us with his "investigations", the dude's a fucking joke.

[Dusty]

[url=https://twitter.com/toqjoyce/status/992455424006918144][/url]

[sterlingarcher]

Maybe it would be a good idea to start a thread highlighting what RVF has given to members?

What I mean is, this forum is MUCH wider than just some threads and comments that may offend.

Many threads start off with 'This forum has given me so much, I wanted to give something back...' or similar.

It seems kinda inevitable that somewhere this forum will get picked up, and they're gonna hone in on what offends.

Of course they'll still most probably do so, but anyway, at least they'll be doing so unconscionably.

[AnonymousBosch]

(05-04-2018 06:22 PM)sterlingarcher Wrote:  

Of course they'll still most probably do so, but anyway, at least they'll be doing so unconscionably.

Except, there's no conscious. When I've spoken about the Degenerate Triad, I've said one component of their thinking is Symbolic. The Objective Reality of what we are isn't important to them, it's their Subjective Reality of what we represent.

As such, they believe they are morally-righteous, of course, without a moral core based in Truth, it always breaks down.

I was reading the Catechism recently, and this jumped out at me:

"It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself, since the end does not justify the means."

Note 'justify' in this context doesn't mean rationalizing the behaviour to oneself: it's the Catholic understanding of it meaning, co-operating with the Will of God via one's free will.

Back to me previously-saying dysfunctional acts produce dysfunctional results: No matter what action Social Justice Warriors take believing they are morally-righteous, they are only following the Law of Self. As such, the end result will always be dysfunctional: ever decreasing-spirals of persecution, excommunication and - in the worst cases - murder of disbelievers, and the dark reality of the security of being a true believer being able to be revoked at any moment as these circles decrease.

Since I take this as both dictated and observable truth, if the Right also starts believing the ends justify the means, similar dysfunction is bound to follow, though I struggled with this point for a couple of years. Note my professed discomfort with seeing people in power stepping down due to what appears to be blackmail from Trump's people. What dysfunction will result?

[demolition]

(05-04-2018 01:52 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 10:29 PM)Suits Wrote:  

The 1st amendment was written into law to prevent the government from restricting speech.

Here's the actual text:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for.

This doesn't mean much.

Just like any of the amendments, the 1st amendment has thousands of pages of judicial interpretation and precedence. 200+ years worth. ALL of that applies to the question. That's how constitutional law works.

I believe that in practice, if a company that controls the means of expression (writing or posting) refuses to provide their services to someone *because they disagree with the content being expressed* then they are damned close to a lawsuit. If you're the only printer in town and you refuse to print somebody's book on the catholic faith because you are a protestant, you can and will be sued and probably lose. You are actively surpassing their right to be heard. Your property rights are secondary in this case.

Godaddy is hard to sue because, it has a ton of competition. Google and Facebook on the other hand are heading for a Federal lawsuit at lightning speed. I will personally laugh and cavort in front of their headquarters if they get broken up. I hate the arrogant fucks.

But I digress.

There's 2 things here:

1. Bake the Cake. I think everyone can agree that forcing businesses to provide services they don't want to is a violation of a natural right freedom to tell anyone to get stuffed if you don't like them, for any reason. (Part of the problem with many of the social engineering efforts of the Left is stepping on this natural right, that's protected by the 1A.)

2. There's enough laws on the books to punish anyone for doing anything. And in the interest of having a modern civil society it's in the best interest of the future of the country to come down extremely hard on tech companies that are engaging in censorship practices. The internet is a new thing, and current legal climate around technology is hot garbage in many ways. Many of the fundamental technological assumptions about the web need to be challenged, and new law needs to be made. Until that can happen, sue the bastards, pin whatever you can on them until they stop and sort principles out later.