User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:29:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By timeless: Why doesn't it apply to all people? Fat people bald people short people people missing an eye ball dirty people stinky people rich people people that like pizza Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By timeless: Originally Posted By kcobean: Serious question....can you explain how? It basically says that Jews as a "race" are protected under the same discrimination laws as blacks, etc. I don't see that it does anything else? Was the CRA unconstitutional? I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to see a perspective I'm not currently seeing. Why doesn't it apply to all people? Fat people bald people short people people missing an eye ball dirty people stinky people rich people people that like pizza Suspect Classification is a thing, and has been a thing for a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:29:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: -OdieGreen-]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By timeless: Pew Research Center surveys, including the 2020 study, show that Jews are among the most consistently liberal and Democratic groups in the U.S. population. Seven-in-ten Jewish adults identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, and half describe their political views as liberal. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-political-views/ Millions of them optimistically stayed in Germany in the 1930’s too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:32:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kcobean: Was the CRA unconstitutional? It absolutely is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:33:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By timeless: Why doesn't it apply to all people? Fat people bald people short people people missing an eye ball dirty people stinky people rich people people that like pizza |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:39:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Yay pandering!
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:39:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kokodude]
[#6]
I just had to go through DEI day at my workplace a couple of weeks back.
No mention of antisemitism. Lots of black oppression stuff, female oppression stuff, gay stuff, and white guilt stuff, but no Jewish or Palestine related stuff. Jews didn't resort to lawless rioting after the Hamas massacre. Maybe that's why they get their own bill in Congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:40:24 PM EDT
[#7]
No more laws
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:46:23 PM EDT
[#8]
No. The first amendment means what it says. Besides, the left will twist this to use against the right just like they do with the FACE act.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:52:14 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: This bill is unconstitutional. Unfortunately many of our politicians have more love for Israel than America. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:23:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lawmonkey: Normally I would agree with you... but, they do it for blacks, gays, trans, etc... . Why not jews too? How about we stop sacrificing freedom in the name of protecting feelings and we all grow a thicker skin? |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:24:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Robertpistol: It shows that the country is gone for a a majority of both parties to vote yes for this. It's completely unconstitutional as the government is not supposed to be in the business of regulating speech at all, not that "Hate speech" works anyway, if you look at Europe all that they use those laws for is to go after White people who criticize mass immigration into their countries, while giving a pass to everything else. We are heading down the same road with this BS. It’s called a Uniparty. It’s a big club..And we are not in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:28:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: Why are so many of the original 13 states so god damn Anti-American? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: Originally Posted By Craigan: Fuck no. This will be later amended until it specially protects everything but straight white men. That's probably the goal, honestly. Submitted by a NY rep, but the dems will take it and run with it. Why are so many of the original 13 states so god damn Anti-American? 
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:28:40 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TaylorAcoustic: Unfortunately many of our politicians have more love for Israel than America. Follow the money, see how much AIPAC is giving to politicians. The more money they're getting, the more vocal their support for Israel. Congress is for sale, and the citizens of this country are not the highest bidders. https://trackaipac.com/ |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:34:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: It’s called a Uniparty. It’s a big club..And we are not in it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: Originally Posted By Robertpistol: It shows that the country is gone for a a majority of both parties to vote yes for this. It's completely unconstitutional as the government is not supposed to be in the business of regulating speech at all, not that "Hate speech" works anyway, if you look at Europe all that they use those laws for is to go after White people who criticize mass immigration into their countries, while giving a pass to everything else. We are heading down the same road with this BS. It’s called a Uniparty. It’s a big club..And we are not in it. Clearly Trump is part of the uniparty.  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13899-combating-anti-semitism |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:47:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11boomboom]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Thrasymachus: Clearly Trump is part of the uniparty. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13899-combating-anti-semitism Except, the bill makes this statement below legally binding (which Trump didn't, he just expanded Title VI to include Jews) without defining specifically in the EO what antisemitism is and instead deferring to an outside private group's definition. "(i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities"; and (ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent. (b) In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations." The bolded section above is also not in the bill. The bill in fact expands to cover criticisms of Israel and perceptions of Jews and their relationship to history and religion by noting that implying negative opinions of past or alleged actions of Jewish people is also antisemitism and punishable under the proposed bill. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:51:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Craigan: Fuck no. This will be later amended until it specially protects everything but straight white men. That's probably the goal, honestly. Submitted by a NY rep, but the dems will take it and run with it. Sounds about right. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 7:08:06 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: Except, the bill makes this statement below legally binding (which Trump didn't, he just expanded Title VI to include Jews) without defining specifically in the EO what antisemitism is and instead deferring to an outside private group's definition. "(i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities"; and (ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent. (b) In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations." The bolded section above is also not in the bill. The bill in fact expands to cover criticisms of Israel and perceptions of Jews and their relationship to history and religion by noting that implying negative opinions of past or alleged actions of Jewish people is also antisemitism and punishable under the proposed bill. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Clearly Trump is part of the uniparty. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13899-combating-anti-semitism Except, the bill makes this statement below legally binding (which Trump didn't, he just expanded Title VI to include Jews) without defining specifically in the EO what antisemitism is and instead deferring to an outside private group's definition. "(i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities"; and (ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent. (b) In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations." The bolded section above is also not in the bill. The bill in fact expands to cover criticisms of Israel and perceptions of Jews and their relationship to history and religion by noting that implying negative opinions of past or alleged actions of Jewish people is also antisemitism and punishable under the proposed bill.  From the bill in question: (b) Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 7:34:44 PM EDT
[#18]
 https://lawler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1668
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 7:44:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HEATSEAKER]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkStar: Follow the money, see how much AIPAC is giving to politicians. The more money they're getting, the more vocal their support for Israel. Congress is for sale, and the citizens of this country are not the highest bidders. https://trackaipac.com/ Mike Lawler who sponsored this bill got 185,000 from AIPAC and it looks like he's being underpaid compared to some of them. Follow the money. The Passion of Christ readings in his Church on Good Friday will be considered hate speech if they are not edited by the ADL but he got his shekels, so all is well in his world. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 7:46:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11boomboom]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Thrasymachus: From the bill in question: Except the definition of antisemitism they are using, that is. Unlike the EO, the bill makes it legally binding and a crime to have negative opinions of Jews or Israel. That line means nothing when you look at how they define antisemitism. The difference is the EO wasn't legally binding, probably because of its ambiguity. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 7:50:48 PM EDT
[#21]
This is scheduled for a vote tomorrow:
 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921/text |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:07:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Consigli]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkStar: This is scheduled for a vote tomorrow: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMmBZbRaYAAA1dv?format=jpg&name=large https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921/text Welcome to Bidens America! Where about 80 years after the liberation of Auschwitz antisemitism is exploding. Behold wise lawmakers effort to curb the division and race hatred they have encouraged since 2018. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:18:56 PM EDT
[#23]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:25:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Cliff’s notes of the bad parts of the bill?
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:29:05 PM EDT
[#25]
I forsee some ones bother getting rich by publishing the mandatory HR training.
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:36:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: Except the definition of antisemitism they are using, that is. Unlike the EO, the bill makes it legally binding and a crime to have negative opinions of Jews or Israel. That line means nothing when you look at how they define antisemitism. The difference is the EO wasn't legally binding, probably because of its ambiguity. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: From the bill in question: Except the definition of antisemitism they are using, that is. Unlike the EO, the bill makes it legally binding and a crime to have negative opinions of Jews or Israel. That line means nothing when you look at how they define antisemitism. The difference is the EO wasn't legally binding, probably because of its ambiguity. The EO was binding insofar that it directed the executive branch on how to interpret antisemitism and includes that into Title VI investigations. This act does the same, and does not make it a crime to criticize Jewish people. It makes discrimination based upon antisemitism a violation of TItle VI. Sorry for ruining your doom and hyperbole circle jerk. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:37:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Rheinmetall792]
[#27]
What about banning Hate Speech against White Christians?
And where is the special word to describe this? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:38:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Snake85: The mere attempt at passing this bill gives credibility to all tropes about Jewish influence and power. Whether that's justified or not. Find out who you are not allowed to criticize..... 🤔 |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:42:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Cliff’s notes of the bad parts of the bill? It codified Trump's 2019 executive order explicitly putting antisemitism info Title VI. So if you want to deny a Jewish person participation in a program that receives federal funds, you can face penalties. Just like before. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 9:58:27 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Thrasymachus: Clearly Trump is part of the uniparty. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13899-combating-anti-semitism No, just a dumb boomer. If he was, would they waste this much effort on him? |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:01:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Thrasymachus: From the bill in question: Yeah. That is a falsehood, told deliberately, you know, a lie. Not sure why you are a system truster but you really need to stop doing so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:22:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rheinmetall792: What about banning Hate Speech against White Christians? And where is the special word to describe this? That bill would be considered antisemitic, probably. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 3:29:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: Yeah. That is a falsehood, told deliberately, you know, a lie. Not sure why you are a system truster but you really need to stop doing so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: From the bill in question: Yeah. That is a falsehood, told deliberately, you know, a lie. Not sure why you are a system truster but you really need to stop doing so. So the part of the bill that is nearly verbatim what Trump put in his executive order, and puts those words into the law are a lie? I am not sure if you understand how bills work, or what a lie is. Not sure why you can't critically think through the most basic stuff, but you really not to start doing so. 
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 4:14:47 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Thrasymachus: So the part of the bill that is nearly verbatim what Trump put in his executive order, and puts those words into the law are a lie? I am not sure if you understand how bills work, or what a lie is. Not sure why you can't critically think through the most basic stuff, but you really not to start doing so. “b) Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” That’s the lie. Hey keep trusting and enjoying the current system dude, if you enjoy things as they are, and you must, keep doing what you have done. What year were you born? |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 4:54:52 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: “b) Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” That’s the lie. Hey keep trusting and enjoying the current system dude, if you enjoy things as they are, and you must, keep doing what you have done. What year were you born? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: So the part of the bill that is nearly verbatim what Trump put in his executive order, and puts those words into the law are a lie? I am not sure if you understand how bills work, or what a lie is. Not sure why you can't critically think through the most basic stuff, but you really not to start doing so. “b) Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” That’s the lie. Hey keep trusting and enjoying the current system dude, if you enjoy things as they are, and you must, keep doing what you have done. What year were you born? How exactly does this affect the 1st Amendment? Whether I enjoy the system or dislike it is irrelevant, what is relevant is what the law does. All this law says is that of you receive federal funds you cannot use antisemitism as a basis for excluding Jewish people. Which is exactly what Trump's executive order already does. I'm old enough to see the naivete of one who refuses to educate themselves on basic facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 9:20:56 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lawmonkey: Normally I would agree with you... but, they do it for blacks, gays, trans, etc... . Why not jews too? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lawmonkey: Originally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: https://twitter.com/RepMikeLawler/status/1785786891490501111?t=f1aB_rhdwsyCmQ6qqY1LZQ&s=19 Text of this act of infringement. First Amendment is very clear, has no exceptions clause, and is absolute. Normally I would agree with you... but, they do it for blacks, gays, trans, etc... . Why not jews too? Not being snarky but where does it end? If laws can be passed to stop you from speaking your opinion then there is no end to the control of the populace by the kings men. I thought we settled this a couple of centuries ago. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 9:24:43 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By -OdieGreen-: The left is literally turning into Nazis, but this isn’t the way to stop them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 9:28:49 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Thrasymachus: How exactly does this affect the 1st Amendment? Whether I enjoy the system or dislike it is irrelevant, what is relevant is what the law does. All this law says is that of you receive federal funds you cannot use antisemitism as a basis for excluding Jewish people. Which is exactly what Trump's executive order already does. I'm old enough to see the naivete of one who refuses to educate themselves on basic facts. You've already been told. Your ignorance is a choice. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 9:30:49 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By callgood: I heard a news blip, the Senate is unlikely to pass it.  Attached FileAIPAC Has Contributed to Every Current U.S. Senator https://www.laprogressive.com/election-reform-campaigns/aipac-gives-to-every-senator |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 9:35:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 56xdx_Z]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkStar: This is scheduled for a vote tomorrow: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMmBZbRaYAAA1dv?format=jpg&name=large https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921/text So basically a bill to force Twitter/X to allow feds to control the algorithm again so they can use it for psyops. Thats how I am reading the "greater transparency" part |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 9:53:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: TLD05]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Cliff’s notes of the bad parts of the bill? The part where criticism of a foreign state power is a violation of US Federal law seems pretty bad. To take the responsibility of defining what specifically violates the law and giving it over to a website. Comparison of the acts carried out by the STATE of Israel present or future to anything the Nazis did, a crime in America. Yeah I mean where are the bad parts?
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 12:18:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: You've already been told. Your ignorance is a choice. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: How exactly does this affect the 1st Amendment? Whether I enjoy the system or dislike it is irrelevant, what is relevant is what the law does. All this law says is that of you receive federal funds you cannot use antisemitism as a basis for excluding Jewish people. Which is exactly what Trump's executive order already does. I'm old enough to see the naivete of one who refuses to educate themselves on basic facts. You've already been told. Your ignorance is a choice.  All that has been posted is hyperbole not related to the actual law. The law is a clarification of Title VI, do you know what Title VI does? If you want to get on a bullhorn and talk about the Jewish illumati then that is perfectly permissible under this law. If you want to exclude a person from a club because they are Jewish, then that is not fine if you receive federal funds. Again, Trump set up the exact same standard in his EO, and even though it was not legally binding, it still established the guidance the DOJ and DOE operated under. Functionally the EO and the act do the same thing. Your inability to understand what this law does is a choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:33:02 PM EDT
[#43]
I'm confused-are we supposed to hate the Jews ot the Palestinians?
Because everything I see seems to be pro Palestine, then they cook up this bill. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:38:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shack357: I'm confused-are we supposed to hate the Jews ot the Palestinians? Because everything I see seems to be pro Palestine, then they cook up this bill. It doesn't matter, just pick one, really. You will be either racist -or- antisemitic. What you're not allowed to do is love America the most. Then you're both racist -and- antisemitic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 4:06:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shack357: I'm confused-are we supposed to hate the Jews ot the Palestinians? Because everything I see seems to be pro Palestine, then they cook up this bill. Palestine doesn't have the resources for blackmail and bribery.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 4:11:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shack357: I'm confused-are we supposed to hate the Jews ot the Palestinians? Because everything I see seems to be pro Palestine, then they cook up this bill. Yesterday we were not at war with Oceania. Today, we've been at war with Eurasia since tomorrow. Stay confused, normie. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 8:52:09 PM EDT
[#47]
"Maga Awareness Act"?
Fair is Fair, right? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
