Weed lasers would be a welcomed implement. In my county they estimate a large percentage of the viable agricultural output is lost due to foreign and domestic invasive plants overtaking grazing and cultivated land. You have to work really hard to feel like you are breaking even if you are not willing to nuke with 2-4D every spring and fall.
Some plants (even native/noninvasives. looking at you Lupine…) cause serious harm directly to livestock, or reduce the carry ability of the pastures (mustards, St. John’s wort) to get livestock to late fall without eating the hay you cut in the summer that might have a cluster of hoary alyssum which will make your horses sick. Some, you may just have to make your peace with (Canadian thistle).
The noteworthiests bits are government entities directing censorship of private speech.
Yes, Twitter is a private platform. But is it legal for the government to aid them in their censorship effort?
Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed?
If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech?
Be specific. What was specifically noteworthy about this that you want to see reported and known to the world. Don’t make up an imaginary scenario of deep dark government suppression of religion. Or use a real example. Dicks. Dicks were censored.
Can you link me to anything showing the New York Post published pictures of Hunter's dick? I can't find any. The closest I can find is reporting from this year on a sex tape published by Radar Online that shows some non-full-frontal stills.
The reporting in 2020 had emails that showed Hunter arranging meetings with Joe that Joe denied, texts telling associates not to refer to Joe Biden by name, as well as an email where Hunter would be holding money for "the big guy."
It looks like this could be quid pro quo official corruption, but there's not enough there yet to be sure. It needs to be investigated.
We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Bill Clinton because it looked like his real estate investment was too good to be true and he had a dodgy tax deduction. We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Trump based on non-specific allegations of collusion. The evidence here is at least as strong as it was in those cases.
The biden campgain, who wasnt part of the government (not that that matters), asked Twitter to remove posts that were of Hunter Biden's penis. No evidence has been presented that the non governement entity, the Biden Campaign, asked for them to remove the Post story. Which, again, is not illegal. If you have evidence otherwise, please present.
> But is it legal for the government to aid them in their censorship effort?
Since it's the government(s) actually telling them what to censor, yeah?
> Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed?
Yeah? But they can't TELL twitter to do so, because that would be a violation of freedom of religion. So they - like many other parties - can report tweets just like everyone else.
> If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech?
You mean like what China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc are doing already? That's all legal - according to the country's laws, anyway.
Moral however, that's a different matter. But I never considered either Twitter or the US government to be moral.
With narrow exceptions, all speech is protected. I used religion because I think it makes it easier to set aside partisan instincts.
Change it to a knitting forum that bans crochet posting, the principle is the same. Is it government censorship if the government helps the knitting forum to develop the anti-crochet rule, and then acts as watchdogs?
