Premise 1: Social Media Terms of Service Constitute "Laws" Equivalent to Federal Statutes
Social media platforms, such as X, wield unprecedented power over public discourse, effectively functioning as the modern public square. Their terms of service (ToS) dictate permissible speech, impose penalties (e.g., suspensions or bans), and shape the boundaries of expression for millions of users. In this sense, these ToS operate as de facto "laws" with a scope and impact rivaling that of a nation’s federal legal system. For white nationalists, this analogy is particularly significant: social media platforms are not mere private entities but quasi-governmental institutions that regulate the speech of a predominantly white American user base, whose cultural and political heritage is rooted in constitutional principles.
Premise 2: Social Media Terms of Service "Laws" Must Align with the U.S. Constitution, Specifically the First Amendment
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech." This protection is a cornerstone of American identity, enshrined to safeguard the rights of individuals—particularly, from a white nationalist viewpoint, the descendants of the nation’s European founders—to express their views without censorship. If social media ToS are "laws" of equivalent weight to federal statutes, they must conform to the same constitutional standards. To do otherwise would undermine the legal and moral framework that white nationalists argue preserves the cultural sovereignty of America’s historic majority.
"Failure to compel social media platforms to align their terms of service with First Amendment protections would erode the constitutional foundation that safeguards robust public discourse, a principle underscored by Cohen v. California (1971), which affirmed the right to offensive or provocative speech as integral to democratic self-governance. Such a lapse would disproportionately silence dissenting voices—including those of white nationalists who assert that their advocacy for the cultural sovereignty of America’s historic majority is a legitimate exercise of political expression—thereby violating the equal application of free speech rights mandated by the Constitution and subverting the legal framework designed to protect all citizens’ expressive liberties, regardless of viewpoint."
Argument: Social Media’s Restrictive ToS Violate First Amendment Principles
Many social media platforms, through their ToS, prohibit content deemed "hate speech" or "extremist," terms often applied to white nationalist rhetoric advocating for racial identity, immigration restrictions, or critiques of multiculturalism. From a white nationalist perspective, these restrictions constitute an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech. The First Amendment does not bend for subjective notions of propriety; it protects even offensive or controversial speech, as affirmed in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which upheld advocacy unless it incites imminent lawless action with intent and likelihood. White nationalists contend their views—framed as a defense of their racial and cultural heritage—are lawful expressions of political dissent, not incitements to violence, and thus merit protection.
Countering the Private Entity Defense
Opponents may argue that social media companies, as private entities, can set their own rules. However, if ToS are "laws" akin to federal statutes, this distinction collapses. Moreover, white nationalists might assert that these platforms’ monopolistic dominance—controlling vast swaths of public communication—imbues them with a public utility-like status. In Marsh v. Alabama (1946), the Supreme Court ruled that a private company town could not suppress First Amendment rights, suggesting that when private power mirrors governmental authority, constitutional obligations follow. Social media’s ToS, as "laws," must therefore prioritize free speech over corporate discretion, especially for a group claiming to represent America’s foundational demographic.
Conclusion: Mandating First Amendment Compliance
If social media ToS are equivalent to federal laws, they cannot arbitrarily censor white nationalist speech without violating the First Amendment. Platforms must either revise their ToS to align with constitutional free speech protections or face legal accountability. For white nationalists, this is not just a legal issue but a cultural imperative: the right to advocate for their identity and survival, as they see it, is non-negotiable under the American system their ancestors built. Failure to enforce this standard risks eroding the liberties that define the nation.
Threw sections of 5 songs together. Timing got a little squirrelly on the last transition for a bar or two but pulled it together. I just record shit one time and keep my mistakes in. I believe it forces me to improve. I don’t remember who op was that posted his titanic theme meme with the jet, but thought it was a good go to. Enjoy, you wonderful faggots. \o
the screen on the laptop is cracked and i lost the keyboard. im going to be learning cnc at a facility and will need a laptop. this laptop would work but to move it around i have to pick up the power cord, keyboard, power supply, and mouse while the USB hub is dangling off of it and the screen is cracked. This makes me look like a homeless person. So option 1: Buy a new laptop. Option 2: print out some plastic garbage. In this case I saved several hundred dollars by not having to buy a new laptop. 3D printer skeptics, I rest my case.
You know it as well as I do. We've all worked in corporate environments. Because most of us are white. I'm a woman and worked in tech so I've been forced to work with idiotic Street shitters with a third of my understanding. Regardless. We all know what happens with incriminating material and your bosses. Just keep your head down plebe. You'll have to storm the castle to get the real files.
According to goog "The federal government has a fairly simple process for classifying documents. The originator of a document, usually a foreign policy or national security staff member, decides if it needs to be classified. In almost all cases this is a simple decision."
Seems kind of fishy to me, I wonder if there is any oversight on what is a classified document and if it really should be
