Comments by "Julian Petkov" (@julianpetkov8320) on "Hawley rips 'cancel culture' after losing book deal" video.

Roger Out She financed his campaign (duh).
7
@VeenSauce Thats not what Simon & Schuster issued. The made a political statement. It is definitely not ok for a public company (ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster) to take a partisan stance.
2
Roger Out Among the most significant targets of Fang's efforts was Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). Fang took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign, according to a Bay Area political operative and a current U.S. intelligence official. Swalwell’s office was directly aware of these activities on its behalf, the political operative said. That same political operative, who witnessed Fang fundraising on Swalwell's behalf, found no evidence of illegal contributions. Federal Election Commission records don’t indicate Fang herself made donations, which are prohibited from foreign nationals. Fang helped place at least one intern in Swalwell's office, according to those same two people, and interacted with Swalwell at multiple events over the course of several years.
2
@beyondcovid8362 ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
2
@IAintTheDaddyMaury ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
1
@IAintTheDaddyMaury Technically, every business requires government registration to operate and is therefore part of the government's business domain. This is even more pronounced with thee public companies, which are governed by corporate governance committees and not managed by the owners. They signed a contract then they backed off, issuing a political statement. So he is going to take them to court. They can choose who to work with but they can't fire a person or break contract for political reasons. This would be discrimination.
1
No. He runs away like a rat.
1
ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster issued a political statement. ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
1
@mr.thomas6072 The FBI did.
1
@oasiscrushinglife6878 "non-government entities"...and what do you suppose a business registration number makes a business? If a business is truly private, it wouldn't need registration and taxes to operate.
1
J B1717 Private business is illegal in the US, and most of the world. You might be calling it private, but private it isn't. The government corporation should really stop playing stupid and should bring its daughter entities (aka "private" businesses) in order with its own corporate constitution.
1
@oasiscrushinglife6878 "The Civil Rights Act has nothing at all to do with this, even as an analogy" So you think you can fire or break a contract with somebody based on their color, religion, political persuasion, etc.? ...umm, ...ok.🙄
1
@blacksmith67 "The First Amendment does not entitle you to a platform" Maybe not, but a contract does. It doesn't matter if it is an employment contract or a book contract, a contract is a contract.
1
J B1717 So you can sell moonshine around the corner without registration and taxes? I don't think so. Maybe in Somalia you can have a private business, not in the "1st world".
1
J B1717 If you want to convince me, please parse the concept of Ownership with the concept of Control for me. I would like to know why you consider something to be private, if you only have limited control over it.
1
@blacksmith67 It is an attempt to silence him. They issued a political statement as their reasoning. It is irrelevant how you feel about it, or how much you love Chinese style Social Media. They are openly trying to silence him and are discriminating against him. Also your concept of "private" is a misnomer. You can have private business in Somalia, in the First World you need registration, regulations and taxes to operate a business (and not just any, it has to meet the government's criteria of allowed business). So the government corporate constitution should be considered universal as the government is de facto the parent entity. Hence you have the imposition of the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Your local corporate constitution can not contain rules to contravene them.
1
J B1717 "No shirt. No shoes. No service." Not after you've entered in contract tho. You can refuse to hire somebody and not tell them it is because of their race or politics. Nobody would know. But if you already hired them and you tell them that you fire them because you don't like their race, religion or politics, then you will have a problem.
1
J B1717 Twitter is not a private business by a long shot. A public company is not managed by the owners, it is governed by the corporate governance committee which takes its regulations and policies from the government. It is practically the government's supervisor inside the company only their wages are paid by the company. Why is the government governing the public corporations directly? Because the public being people of all categories, may not have the resources to monitor the company they bought shares in. Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg do not control anything. They can make business decisions, but that's about it. Can you understand this? They get roasted in public but it is actually the government which dictates their policies. So the government can quickly remove their censorship policies.
1
@oasiscrushinglife6878 Yes, it is called "Citizenship" - your corporate "person".
1
ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
1
ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster issued a political statement. ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
1
ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster issued a political statement. ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
1
@STEEZ4U ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
1
ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster issued a political statement. ViacomCBS/Simon & Schuster is a Public Company, but even if it wasn't, the 1st Amendment applies to everybody (unless you think the Civil Rights Act also does not apply because somebody is "private").
1