that is more of the COCK brothers propoganda. Politifact is owned by an ebay founder, Pierre Omidiyar. Republicans are seriously messed up in the head to believe all these crazy conspiracy theories about Hilary Clinton. Not even a president can do half the shit the dumb right wing nut jobs think hilary supposedly did. What would Hilary have to gain from selling uranium to russia in this fictional fairy tail you repubterds like to tell? Face it, you have been fed bullshit fake news from fox news and you come here sounding like retards. The brainwashing program needs to be undone before you nut jobs can enter society safely again.

Trump's supporters in rural America and the flyover states probably don't even know what the Oscars is nor do they have internet or TV to watch anyway.

States rights is like free speech. It only matters when it agrees with my agenda.

What? :S

So let's get this clear...you think that the complaints are a "smear campaign" and amount to people losing their "free expression." Yet the ONLY thing that happened here is that social media allowed peoples' voices to be heard by more people?

That's a VERY strange position to take. Use the internet in order to get more people to hear about how you don't like something? Oh no, increased support against a cause means loss of free expression. But, use the internet to get crowdfunding for a project or get exposure for your songs and paintings? people seem to be a-okay with that. I don't seem to hear any anti-SJW's complaining about how the internet lets them more easily get their anti-SJW rants heard. This whole "but, mah free expression" thing only ever really seems to come up when the issue in question is something that the person disagrees with.

So, to clarify things...this is a smear campaign and infringes on free expression SOLELY because social media made the complaints have a bigger impact? That seems to be a pretty hypocritical stance to take. Most people use the advantages of social media all the time and have zero issue with it, but the second that someone who we DISAGREE with decides to effectively use social media for THEIR agenda, it's like, "OMG, what about free expression"? Is that where we're going with this?

15 years ago products were removed because of complaints. This is not true that this is a new phenomena. And the business has a RIGHT and the FREEDOM to decide if carrying a product is worth losing their goodwill.

A dog received millions from inheritance. What do animals even want from the government? They don't offer anything worth voting for to a dog.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001471/Trouble-dog-inherited-12m-billionaire-Leona-Helmsley-dies.html

Firstly, how the hell is a "smear campaign" inherently at odds with free expression?

Firstly, YES my freedom of expression allows me to do a "smear campaign" if I want. If it involves something criminal like death threats, then I can be arrested and put in jail. If it involves something like libel or slander then they can sue my ass off. But I'm hearing "smear campaign" a lot when what really happened is nothing more than "someone complaining and then telling everyone who'll listen how offended they were".

If THAT is what we're talking about as far as a "smear campaign", then how is that at odds with free expression? By that standard, and social action that garners attention would be a "smear campaign". Want to organize a protest? Well, protests are designed to be visible and garner attention. SMEAR CAMPAIGN!

But hey...I just read the article. I'm assuming that you have more knowledge of this incident and can enlighten me on details that weren't included in the linked article. For my own enlightenment, how EXACTLY were anyone's free expressions violated and what EXACTLY do you mean when you call something a "smear campaign"?