# Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?



## Flopper

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.    

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact. 

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Yes, there should be SOME limits. I support the "Some" as defined during the bulk of my 66 year life up until recent times. 

The authoritarian left has expanded that "some" to the point where it means "anything they don't like", however, and that is a very dangerous thing, indeed.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann

Yeah...that's what we need to accompany the corporate directed censorship, more government censorship.
No not really. 
We should expand free speech.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Of course if the people would wake the fuck up, go after the brainless idiots on the Capitol Hill and do very bad things to them, making them want to leave this country, then none of this shit would be worrisome.  But as long as those fuckers keep the idiots going against the rest of US citizens, then divided we fall...


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Facts are just opinions


----------



## excalibur

Dogmaphobe said:


> Yes, there should be SOME limits. I support the "Some" as defined during the bulk of my 66 year life up until recent times.
> 
> The authoritarian left has expanded that "some" to the point where it means "anything they don't like", however, and that is a very dangerous thing, indeed.




But muh Trump, fascist.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The success and efficacy of the vaccines is misinformation.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



This is why the government claims they want to control the internet.

But as we have all seen during our lives, the government lies to us.  What they claim is "good for us" is actually a controlling mechanism.
Whether it be "good" or "bad" is a moot point.  The government should be creating ways for people to have to be responsible for what they say on the internet. 

And that all starts with the media.  Freedom of speech is completely different from blatant lying and fabrication of "news" in order to cite dissension and violence between people.

Until ALL news media is forced to pay for their lies and treachery, and pay actual money in restitution for what their lies and deceit has done to this country and it's people, nothing will ever change.  

It's a case of "monkey see, monkey do".  The brainless sheeples of this country see what the politicians, media, and corporations do..........and they expect they can do the same as they do.

Stop the lies and abuse where it starts.  The sheeples will soon follow.


----------



## Hossfly

As long as you stick to the Bill of Rights, you ain't wrong.


----------



## Asclepias

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves.  The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this.  They are not doing it.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Asclepias said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
Click to expand...

ever hear of a monopoly?


----------



## Asclepias

bear513 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
Click to expand...

Yes why do you ask?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Asclepias said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Just checking


----------



## Asclepias

bear513 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just checking
Click to expand...

What's the relevance of a monopoly to my post?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Asclepias said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just checking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the relevance of a monopoly to my post?
Click to expand...

If you are wondering..well


----------



## Asclepias

bear513 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just checking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the relevance of a monopoly to my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are wondering..well
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you were unaware that FB is not a monopoly?  Dont get silent on me now.









						Facebook Alternatives 2022 - Social Networks That Won't Sell Your Data - Make A Website Hub
					

People are starting to wise up to what Facebook is doing with their data. If you want to find an alternative to Facebook then look no further.




					makeawebsitehub.com


----------



## konradv

bear513 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Asclepias said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just checking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the relevance of a monopoly to my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are wondering..well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing you were unaware that FB is not a monopoly?  Dont get silent on me now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook Alternatives 2022 - Social Networks That Won't Sell Your Data - Make A Website Hub
> 
> 
> People are starting to wise up to what Facebook is doing with their data. If you want to find an alternative to Facebook then look no further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> makeawebsitehub.com
Click to expand...

Lmao


----------



## Asclepias

konradv said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Myspace is still here.


----------



## Wyatt earp

konradv said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of USMB?


----------



## FreeThink

Asclepias said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
Click to expand...

The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.


----------



## Asclepias

FreeThink said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that its still their right to delete, tag any post you make or kick you off their platform.


----------



## Pellinore

Of course, there already are some; it seems as if the question here is in fact, should we have more, or fewer?

To tell the truth, I'm not crazy about society investing the responsibility of drawing the line between protected and unprotected speech in the likes of Mark Zuckerburg, but the law always takes a few decades to catch up to technology.  So, I guess we take what we can get.


----------



## Darkwind

What to do when the misinformation comes from those who are claiming they are trying to stop the 'misinformation'?

The single greatest control of misinformation is gaslighting those who would tell the truth and claim they are misinforming people.

He who controls the spice controls the universe.


----------



## yidnar

Asclepias said:


> FreeThink said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that its still their right to delete, tag any post you make or kick you off their platform.
Click to expand...

should phone companies be able to do the same ?


----------



## Asclepias

yidnar said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FreeThink said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that its still their right to delete, tag any post you make or kick you off their platform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should phone companies be able to do the same ?
Click to expand...

Yep.


----------



## Oddball

candycorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves.  The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this.  They are not doing it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Oddball

konradv said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
Click to expand...


A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.


Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.


----------



## Asclepias

Darkwind said:


> What to do when the misinformation comes from those who are claiming they are trying to stop the 'misinformation'?
> 
> The single greatest control of misinformation is gaslighting those who would tell the truth and claim they are misinforming people.
> 
> He who controls the spice controls the universe.


I don't subscribe to the "do nothing because what if" method of problem solving.  That's called analysis paralysis.  There is a tried and true method of problem solving. Form a plan. Implement the plan. Analyze the results to see what you can do better. Wash and repeat.


----------



## Asclepias

Oddball said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

That would only be true if FaceBook was the only news media in town.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



Nope. 

We already have reasonable limits on free speech. Slander, "fire in crowded theater", harassment - that kind of thing - are reasonably well defined. The last thing we want is a "Ministry of Truth", whereby the party in charge slams its vision of reality down our throats.


----------



## Oddball

Asclepias said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would only be true if FaceBook was the only news media in town.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the question of prior restraint, comrade.


----------



## yidnar

Asclepias said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FreeThink said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that its still their right to delete, tag any post you make or kick you off their platform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should phone companies be able to do the same ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.
Click to expand...

wow ! totalitarian fascism ! and the reason you believe that is because you think your views will be allowed !


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
Click to expand...


Facebook, or any other website, censoring content is an entirely different matter. Really has nothing to do with the OP. Kinda the opposite really.


----------



## Asclepias

Oddball said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would only be true if FaceBook was the only news media in town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the question of prior restraint, comrade.
Click to expand...

Actually its not. If there is only one source of information then the danger is greater than the benefit


----------



## Oddball

Asclepias said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would only be true if FaceBook was the only news media in town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the question of prior restraint, comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually its not. If there is only one source of information then the danger is greater than the benefit
Click to expand...

Actually, it is....Your "one source of information" is an irrelevant red herring.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facebook, or any other website, censoring content is an entirely different matter. Really has nothing to do with the OP. Kinda the opposite really.
Click to expand...

The title asks should there be limits on freedom of speech.  It's not a free speech issue because its a private company which is what the OP is indirectly referencing.


----------



## dblack

FreeThink said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.
Click to expand...

The problem is Facebook is neither a monopoly, nor a government entity. If you don't like the way they play, don't play with them. That's pretty easy. You can do it!


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facebook, or any other website, censoring content is an entirely different matter. Really has nothing to do with the OP. Kinda the opposite really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The title asks should there be limits on freedom of speech.  It's not a free speech issue because its a private company which is what the OP is indirectly referencing.
Click to expand...

I didn't read that into the OP.


----------



## Blues Man

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.

If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd


----------



## Asclepias

Blues Man said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd
Click to expand...

Thats only true if their stupidity doesn't have any affect on you.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry. 
That is a fact.
On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them. 
That, to me, is worse than the internet.


----------



## Asclepias

iamwhatiseem said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
Click to expand...

Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..


----------



## justoffal

Dogmaphobe said:


> Yes, there should be SOME limits. I support the "Some" as defined during the bulk of my 66 year life up until recent times.
> 
> The authoritarian left has expanded that "some" to the point where it means "anything they don't like", however, and that is a very dangerous thing, indeed.


Yep it all boils down to who is call what misinformation.....  If we say the Republicans are sane decent people that will be considered misinformation and therefore expunged.  If we say that drag queens have no business reading bed time stories to 6 year old kids. That will be considered misinformation and therefore expunged.  If we observe that the Biden Administration is bussing tens of thousands of unvetted, unvaccinated and unemployed illegal aliens all over the country and just dumping them on communities with no warning...that will be considered misinformation.....son and so forth....


----------



## Dogmaphobe

justoffal said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there should be SOME limits. I support the "Some" as defined during the bulk of my 66 year life up until recent times.
> 
> The authoritarian left has expanded that "some" to the point where it means "anything they don't like", however, and that is a very dangerous thing, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep it all boils down to who is call what misinformation.....  If we say the Republicans are sane decent people that will be considered misinformation and therefore expunged.  If we say that drag queens have no business reading bed time stories to 6 year old kids. That will be considered misinformation and therefore expunged.  If we observe that the Biden Administration is bussing tens of thousands of unvetted, unvaccinated and unemployed illegal aliens all over the country and just dumping them on communities with no warning...that will be considered misinformation.....son and so forth....
Click to expand...

They have been pulling this sleight of hand where they call any person who disagrees with their POLICIES designed to kill small business as being anti- science, and so if anybody disagrees with these fascist policies, they are accused of opposing science. As they indulge in their censorship all they have to do then is substitute the word science for anything that opposes their policies, and it becomes a fait accompli.


----------



## dblack

Here's the kind of thing I assumed the OP was talking about:









						Facebook’s Frustrated Critics Take Their Fight to Washington
					

Civil rights groups shift strategy toward legislation to clean up social media




					www.bloomberg.com
				




It's funny, Trumpsters mostly agree with the Democrats - both groups want government telling FB how to run their website. They just have different 'tells' in mind.


----------



## Crepitus

Dogmaphobe said:


> The authoritarian left has expanded that "some" to the point where it means "anything they don't like


That's a lie.


----------



## Crepitus

bear513 said:


> Facts are just opinions


No.  Where did you get a stupid idea like that?


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
Click to expand...

People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.


----------



## JohnDB

On one hand the Democratic party leaned heavily on Social Media with their blatant left wing bias and congressional protection to silence the Right wing but now are complaining about the mis-information about vaccines and Coronavirus. 

Can't have it both ways....

And since their own picks for Judges are the ones who threw the only viable case out of court that could have fixed it... you are left with chaos. 

Stop whining and fix it yourself.


----------



## dblack

JohnDB said:


> On one hand the Democratic party leaned heavily on Social Media with their blatant left wing bias and congressional protection to silence the Right wing but now are complaining about the mis-information about vaccines and Coronavirus.
> 
> Can't have it both ways....



Haven't you heard? It's National Hypocrisy Month (decade?) - we can all have it both ways.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
Click to expand...

Not if you can't identify them. Why do you think the people that make all the computer viruses almost never get caught?


----------



## JohnDB

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
Click to expand...

Nope....can't.  as social media is just that... social media. You are assumed to be giving opinions and not qualified advice to a specific person. 

This is why one of the Wall Street Bets guys is in trouble...he holds an NASD certification and promoted himself by saying such. He is definitely in trouble. 

Which is why you don't go to Social Media for advice...old fable exists about listening to everyone.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you can't identify them. Why do you think the people that make all the computer viruses almost never get caught?
Click to expand...

So? Same goes for the media. Whatever. Not looking to debate the matter. It's the Truth™ - you can be sued for spreading false information on the internet. You were suggesting the opposite. Which isn't true.


----------



## dblack

JohnDB said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope....can't.
Click to expand...

Yep....can.


----------



## Ringtone

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​
In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?

Beyond inciting crimes, no.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you can't identify them. Why do you think the people that make all the computer viruses almost never get caught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Same goes for the media. Whatever. Not looking to debate the matter. It's the Truth™ - you can be sued for spreading false information on the internet. You were suggesting the opposite. Which isn't true.
Click to expand...

Its not the same. Youre talking a technicality. I am talking reality. People in the media can easily be identified.  Someone that spins up a server on the internet spreads some lies and then tears down only to pop up somewhere else is virtually impossible to find.


----------



## Asclepias

Ringtone said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​
> In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?
> 
> Beyond inciting crimes, no.
Click to expand...

Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn.  No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.


----------



## JohnDB

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you can't identify them. Why do you think the people that make all the computer viruses almost never get caught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Same goes for the media. Whatever. Not looking to debate the matter. It's the Truth™ - you can be sued for spreading false information on the internet. You were suggesting the opposite. Which isn't true.
Click to expand...

You can sue a ham sandwich for having mustard and mayo on it... maybe even using the slice of cheese on it as corroboration. But collecting a judgement for damages is another subject altogether. 

Can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.


----------



## Flopper

9thIDdoc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
> Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.
Click to expand...


At the begin of the information age in the mid 20th century, there was a sharp divide between news and opinion. When newspapers crossed the line and began inserting opinion into news articles, both the public and advertisers were quick to react. Every graduate of a school of journalism had the principal of keeping opinion and intentional slants out of their writing.  

At that time the FCC had rules that required TV and radio stations to show disclaimers such as "the following views and opinions expressed do not necessary represent the views of this station and those ...."  And in goverment and other institutions publications where opinion was expressed, "The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of".

By the 1960's, the public  demand for more news and more analysis and the TV networks desire to make news and information programs more entertaining and thus more profitable lead to a collapse of the wall between news and opinion. TV programs such as "60 Minutes" began to appear first with warnings of the content containing opinion but that soon disappeared.   With the growth of cable news networks and then the Internet, any pretense of separating news and news analysis began disappearing. Then we saw news networks taking a position on just about ever controversial issue. 

As a result, fact and opinion has merged together so well that we can not agree on facts.  And without agreement on facts it is impossible to reach agreements on a proper course of action. 

As a starter, the media needs to label news as news and opinion as such.  Of course, a lot more needs to be done, exactly what that is, I have no idea but we have to begin somewhere, because this nation cannot stand if we don't fix this.


----------



## Ringtone

Asclepias said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​
> In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?
> 
> Beyond inciting crimes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn.  No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

It's the OP that's nonsensical!  Some limit on freedom of speech?!  Oxymoron.  The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in.  Huh?  

We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

_Inciting criminality_ goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right.  In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights.  Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .

The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists.  Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.


----------



## Asclepias

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​
> In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?
> 
> Beyond inciting crimes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn.  No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> It's the OP that's nonsensical!  Some limit on freedom of speech?!  Oxymoron.  The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in.  Huh?  We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> _Inciting criminality_ goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right.  In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights.  Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .
> 
> The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists.  Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.
Click to expand...

*"that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality"*

There are no rights. There are only privileges and privileges are tenuous at best.  I can prove that to you with 2 examples.  

1. All someone has to do is make what you are saying a crime and what you believed was a right is clearly revealed as....not a right.

2. In regard to a natural right? That too is a pipe dream. Nature does not recognize rights. If something more lethal takes your "rights" away there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



There needs to be a proper understanding of liberty-responsibility. 

Given a proper understanding of the relevance in referencing the two indivisibly and in the historic manner deserved, the question is moot. Patently.

I've yet to see this very critical discussion had here, however. Ever.

For every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty. For every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility. So that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility.

I often mention that the gradual erosion of virtue in society is probably the most unrecognized threat to Individual liberty in America today.

The reason I mention that fact is because there actually is a primary foundation for moral code from which our form of government was established. 

I say form of government as opposed to saying popular type of government so as to specify the difference between our Republic and the recently popularized use of intellectually dishonest language which strategically trains people to think of our Republic as "A Democracy. Or "Our Democracy' as they've flirted around with. There's a difference between "A Democracy and democracy. And that's the difference in reconizing and clearly understanding that ''our Republic'' is antithetical to the whole "Our Democracy" language.

And no matter what channel the idiot box is on they're all referencing our republic as our Democracy. All of em. Even their beloved Tucker.

In doing so all they're really doing is openly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of form versus type of government. Which renders all of them unqualified to even discuss such things. Much less lead that discussion.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Crepitus said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are just opinions
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where did you get a stupid idea like that?
Click to expand...

Tell me a fact, I will wait


----------



## Asclepias

bear513 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are just opinions
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where did you get a stupid idea like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me a fact, I will wait
Click to expand...

If your head is severed you will die eventually.


----------



## hjmick

No.


----------



## Ringtone

Asclepias said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​
> In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?
> 
> Beyond inciting crimes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn.  No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> It's the OP that's nonsensical!  Some limit on freedom of speech?!  Oxymoron.  The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in.  Huh?  We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> _Inciting criminality_ goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right.  In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights.  Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .
> 
> The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists.  Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality"*
> 
> There are no rights. There are only privileges and privileges are tenuous at best.  I can prove that to you with 2 examples.
> 
> 1. All someone has to do is make what you are saying a crime and what you believed was a right is clearly revealed as....not a right.
> 
> 2. In regard to a natural right? That too is a pipe dream. Nature does not recognize rights. If something more lethal takes your "rights" away there is nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

Hogwash!

Mere privileges, he says.

First, you misinterpreted my original observation. You thought I was arguing against the property rights of privately owned platforms and/or servers. I wasn't, was I?

Now you’re making an absolute, philosophical claim regarding the nature of reality itself.

The rights of natural law are inherent. They are endowed by God, not by nature. That is what is meant by the term of art _The Law of Nature and Nature’s God_. They cannot be given to us or taken away from us by the state. They cannot be transferred. Period. They can only be illegitimately suppressed/violated by social renegades or by the state. The inherent rights of natural law do not cease to exist because they are suppressed/violated.

You're exhibit _A_ as to why leftists in general and atheists in particular cannot be trusted to defend liberty.


----------



## Asclepias

Ringtone said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​
> In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?
> 
> Beyond inciting crimes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn.  No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> It's the OP that's nonsensical!  Some limit on freedom of speech?!  Oxymoron.  The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in.  Huh?  We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> _Inciting criminality_ goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right.  In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights.  Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .
> 
> The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists.  Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality"*
> 
> There are no rights. There are only privileges and privileges are tenuous at best.  I can prove that to you with 2 examples.
> 
> 1. All someone has to do is make what you are saying a crime and what you believed was a right is clearly revealed as....not a right.
> 
> 2. In regard to a natural right? That too is a pipe dream. Nature does not recognize rights. If something more lethal takes your "rights" away there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> 
> First, you misinterpreted my original observation. You thought I was arguing against the property rights of privately owned platforms and/or servers. I wasn't, was I?
> 
> Now you’re making an absolute, philosophical claim regarding the nature of reality itself.
> 
> The rights of natural law are inherent. They are endowed by God, not by nature. That is what is meant by the term of art _The Law of Nature and Nature’s God_. They cannot be given to us or taken away from us by the state. They cannot be transferred. Period. They can only be illegitimately suppressed/violated by social renegades or by the state. The inherent rights of natural law do not cease to exist because they are suppressed/violated.
> 
> You're exhibit _A_ as to why leftists in general and atheists in particular cannot be trusted to defend liberty.
Click to expand...

*"They are endowed by God, not by nature"*

You are deluded. Prove there is a god. I'll wait.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Asclepias said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
Click to expand...

Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers. 

As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate

Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Which is why we have a Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law. 

Should the people err and enact legislation repugnant to the First Amendment, such as government control and regulation of social media, the courts will invalidate such legislation as being unconstitutional, and appropriately so. 

In the context of private society, private citizens are at liberty to speak out against private speech they find inappropriate, offensive, or dangerous, absent interference by government or the courts. 
.


----------



## Desperado

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Absolutely NOT. If you set limits then you have to have a censor board to decides what can and cannot be said.  Muc ike we have the White House censoring Covid conversatios   That is wrong in somany ways.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

candycorn said:


> Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves. The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this. They are not doing it.


Disagree - if by ‘regulatory bodies’ you mean government. 

If social media are being reckless and irresponsible concerning facilitating the spread of misinformation and lies, then they should be sanctioned by private citizens - not government. 

Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against social media, boycott social media, and refuse to participate by closing accounts. 

But private citizens are not at liberty to use the government to sanction social media.


----------



## emilynghiem

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


There already are limits based on preventing fraud, deceptive or false advertising, misrepresentation or defamation, slander libel death threats, conspiracy to violate rights, etc.

The problem and solution are based on the Golden Rule of Reciprocity.

Parties that benefit from slandering each other lose authority and leverage to police against abuses they equally commit and promote.

That is why not more is getting done effectively, Flopper. If you play the same game, you lose credibility and cannot compel or correct others. 

I, and others seeking to correct misperceptions without exploiting biases or problems to exclude or overrule others politically, tend to experience better reception and effective communication to resolve misunderstanding or miscommunication, since we are NOT motivated by onesided political bias, but we seek to INCLUDE and defend people equally (not just blame one side while excusing others).

We can all be more united and effective in correcting misinformation by being more consistent ourselves.

By using free speech correctly, freedom of the press and right to petition to redress grievances peaceably, the First Amendment checks itself against abuses.

Only if we abuse it, do we lose authority, credibility and leverage to prevent abuse. You cannot enforce laws as consistently unless you commit to respect them so you practice what you preach and compel others by your example.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oddball said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.
> 
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.
Click to expand...

This is a lie - as ignorant as it is idiotic. 

Neither FB nor the government are engaging in ‘prior restraint.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

FreeThink said:


> The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.


And? 

The problem is authoritarians who seek to violate the First Amendment by subjecting social media to unwarranted regulation and restriction. 

Don’t like how a given platform conducts business, then don’t participate.


----------



## Wyatt earp

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> FreeThink said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> The problem is authoritarians who seek to violate the First Amendment by subjecting social media to unwarranted regulation and restriction.
> 
> Don’t like how a given platform conducts business, then don’t participate.
Click to expand...

monopoly and the government is playing with fire


----------



## candycorn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves. The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this. They are not doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree - if by ‘regulatory bodies’ you mean government.
> 
> If social media are being reckless and irresponsible concerning facilitating the spread of misinformation and lies, then they should be sanctioned by private citizens - not government.
> 
> Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against social media, boycott social media, and refuse to participate by closing accounts.
> 
> But private citizens are not at liberty to use the government to sanction social media.
Click to expand...


Usually I would agree with you.  

I hate crunchy peanut butter.  If Facebook was stating that creamy peanut butter will cause you to die... I'd just shrug.  None of it is true but there is no viral pandemic where creamy peanut butter was being prescribed as a vaccine to prevent or at least mitigate the pandemic. 

That isn't the case about the corona virus...people are dying as a result of the mis-information.  Are we going to have to have a three (or four) digit body count to understand that the mis-information about election security is serious?


----------



## Crepitus

bear513 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are just opinions
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where did you get a stupid idea like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me a fact, I will wait
Click to expand...

The sky is blue.

Water is wet.

Neither of those are opinions.  Facts in general are not opinions, especially if you're not a RWNJ.

Sorry for your lack of education.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Here's the kind of thing I assumed the OP was talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook’s Frustrated Critics Take Their Fight to Washington
> 
> 
> Civil rights groups shift strategy toward legislation to clean up social media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, Trumpsters mostly agree with the Democrats - both groups want government telling FB how to run their website. They just have different 'tells' in mind.


Wrong. 

This fails as a false comparison fallacy. 

What civil rights organizations are seeking is in no manner similar to what the right is seeking; conservatives want to see social media ‘broken up,’ subject to government regulation of content, and social media subject to government sanctions for who they allow or disallow to participate, such as the Republican Florida law recently invalidated by the courts.


----------



## Colin norris

andaronjim said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course if the people would wake the fuck up, go after the brainless idiots on the Capitol Hill and do very bad things to them, making them want to leave this country, then none of this shit would be worrisome.  But as long as those fuckers keep the idiots going against the rest of US citizens, then divided we fall...
Click to expand...


Your Republican  red necks tried that on 6/1.   That worked well.  Now you want to do it again. How dumb are you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> As a starter, the media needs to label news as news and opinion as such. Of course, a lot more needs to be done, exactly what that is, I have no idea but we have to begin somewhere, because this nation cannot stand if we don't fix this.


And the media are at liberty to do that if they so desire - but the government has no place compelling them to do so through force of law.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the kind of thing I assumed the OP was talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook’s Frustrated Critics Take Their Fight to Washington
> 
> 
> Civil rights groups shift strategy toward legislation to clean up social media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, Trumpsters mostly agree with the Democrats - both groups want government telling FB how to run their website. They just have different 'tells' in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> What civil rights organizations are seeking is in no manner similar to what the right is seeking; conservatives want to see social media ‘broken up,’ subject to government regulation of content, and social media subject to government sanctions for who they allow or disallow to participate, such as the Republican Florida law recently invalidated by the courts.
Click to expand...


I know, I know. It's different when Democrats do it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ringtone said:


> The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists.


This is a lie. 

The Republican enacted Florida law subjecting social media to punitive measures is proof that it’s a lie.


----------



## beautress

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


That benefits atheists who threaten Christian people the world over and it benefits politicians who want to deny the Second @mendment so they can have total power the likes of which were last seen in WWII, Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and in the Ukraine where Boden extorted a billion dollars using his Office of Vice President, which he himself bragged a out it to his Democrat mens club on that video of him gone viral a few years back.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


In the UK, we have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws. What this does is, it hopefully puts their brain into gear before mouth and pen, but if it doesn't, they shouldn't cry if they are marched off to court and pay for their stupidity.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Flopper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
> Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the begin of the information age in the mid 20th century, there was a sharp divide between news and opinion. When newspapers crossed the line and began inserting opinion into news articles, both the public and advertisers were quick to react. Every graduate of a school of journalism had the principal of keeping opinion and intentional slants out of their writing.
> 
> At that time the FCC had rules that required TV and radio stations to show disclaimers such as "the following views and opinions expressed do not necessary represent the views of this station and those ...."  And in goverment and other institutions publications where opinion was expressed, "The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of".
> 
> By the 1960's, the public  demand for more news and more analysis and the TV networks desire to make news and information programs more entertaining and thus more profitable lead to a collapse of the wall between news and opinion. TV programs such as "60 Minutes" began to appear first with warnings of the content containing opinion but that soon disappeared.   With the growth of cable news networks and then the Internet, any pretense of separating news and news analysis began disappearing. Then we saw news networks taking a position on just about ever controversial issue.
> 
> As a result, fact and opinion has merged together so well that we can not agree on facts.  And without agreement on facts it is impossible to reach agreements on a proper course of action.
> 
> As a starter, the media needs to label news as news and opinion as such.  Of course, a lot more needs to be done, exactly what that is, I have no idea but we have to begin somewhere, because this nation cannot stand if we don't fix this.
Click to expand...

I agree with much that you say but am skeptical that the problem is fixable. There have always been "snake-oil" salesmen and I suspect there always will be. We have a hugh  advertising industry whose basic purpose is to sell propaganda to consumers. The concept of a politician telling the truth or honoring campaign promises has become  a joke.
The media has largely become advertising agencies selling their propaganda to the highest bidder. Social media restricts what posters can say and to whom. To a large extent personal political beliefs can only be expressed to "friends" who likely already share those opinions. A person cannot know truth if he never hears it and/or discusses it. So social media serves to divide rather than unit. Personally I would never have believed that Americans would have ever considered being "politically correct" to be a good thing. I still haven't gotten over finding out they weren't joking.
As I said I don't know if the situation is fixable but I am convinced that more restrictions are far more likely to harm than help, Giving someone authority to limit what information people can hear see and read is only likely to make someone wealthy being one more propaganda salesman. Big Brother.


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves. The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this. They are not doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree - if by ‘regulatory bodies’ you mean government.
> 
> If social media are being reckless and irresponsible concerning facilitating the spread of misinformation and lies, then they should be sanctioned by private citizens - not government.
> 
> Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against social media, boycott social media, and refuse to participate by closing accounts.
> 
> But private citizens are not at liberty to use the government to sanction social media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually I would agree with you.
> 
> I hate crunchy peanut butter.  If Facebook was stating that creamy peanut butter will cause you to die... I'd just shrug.  None of it is true but there is no viral pandemic where creamy peanut butter was being prescribed as a vaccine to prevent or at least mitigate the pandemic.
> 
> That isn't the case about the corona virus...people are dying as a result of the mis-information.  Are we going to have to have a three (or four) digit body count to understand that the mis-information about election security is serious?
Click to expand...

Hum have you flown on a airplane recently and they gave you peanuts ?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Captain Caveman said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> In the UK, we have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws. What this does is, it hopefully puts their brain into gear before mouth and pen, but if it doesn't, they shouldn't cry if they are marched off to court and pay for their stupidity.
Click to expand...

Seems to me I recall the UK having "hate speech" laws that some dissident Americas would like to import as well as the Muslim "courts" that do not tolerate free speech.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

candycorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves. The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this. They are not doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree - if by ‘regulatory bodies’ you mean government.
> 
> If social media are being reckless and irresponsible concerning facilitating the spread of misinformation and lies, then they should be sanctioned by private citizens - not government.
> 
> Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against social media, boycott social media, and refuse to participate by closing accounts.
> 
> But private citizens are not at liberty to use the government to sanction social media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually I would agree with you.
> 
> I hate crunchy peanut butter.  If Facebook was stating that creamy peanut butter will cause you to die... I'd just shrug.  None of it is true but there is no viral pandemic where creamy peanut butter was being prescribed as a vaccine to prevent or at least mitigate the pandemic.
> 
> That isn't the case about the corona virus...people are dying as a result of the mis-information.  Are we going to have to have a three (or four) digit body count to understand that the mis-information about election security is serious?
Click to expand...

Government engaging in lawful, Constitutional regulation of goods and services as authorized by the Commerce Clause is different from government regulating the content of speech of private media, which violates the First Amendment. 

That private social media might do a poor job of editing its content that contains misinformation, lies, and conspiracy theories doesn’t warrant punitive measures by government. 

Indeed, potential First Amendment violations notwithstanding, the efficacy of such laws also render them unwarranted; more government regulation likely won’t do anything to compel social media to do more than they’re doing absent more regulation.


----------



## Natural Citizen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Government engaging in lawful, Constitutional regulation of goods and services as authorized by the Commerce Clause is different from government regulating the content of speech of private media, which violates the First Amendment.



You've demonstrated time and time again that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what purpose the Commerce Clause serves.

In fact, I've only ever observed you try to pawn off what purpose you would like it to serve as if it were actually factual. 

It's laughable, really.

The ''general Welfare'' referenced in the Taxing Clause is another one you butcher every time you type it. It's like nails on a chalkboard just reading. Heh heh.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

We have too many limitations on speech as it is.


----------



## Flopper

9thIDdoc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
> Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.
Click to expand...

That maybe so but sites such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, webhosting services, and messages boards such as USMB are not required to supply a megaphone to those who consistently shout lies and misinformation.  This is probably the best way  to stop them.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Captain Caveman said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> In the UK, we have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws. What this does is, it hopefully puts their brain into gear before mouth and pen, but if it doesn't, they shouldn't cry if they are marched off to court and pay for their stupidity.
Click to expand...

In the U.K, you get thrown in jail if you object to racist Pakistani goons gang raping your children.


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of USMB?
Click to expand...

I don't find any rule on USMB that restricts posting dangerous misinformation.


----------



## Ringtone

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the kind of thing I assumed the OP was talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook’s Frustrated Critics Take Their Fight to Washington
> 
> 
> Civil rights groups shift strategy toward legislation to clean up social media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, Trumpsters mostly agree with the Democrats - both groups want government telling FB how to run their website. They just have different 'tells' in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> What civil rights organizations are seeking is in no manner similar to what the right is seeking; conservatives want to see social media ‘broken up,’ subject to government regulation of content, and social media subject to government sanctions for who they allow or disallow to participate, such as the Republican Florida law recently invalidated by the courts.
Click to expand...

Stop gaslighting, Lefty.  The assaults on the freedom of speech from the political left are rampant and infamous.  It's not even close.

From the article cited by *dblack*:



> Now that Democrats control the White House and a majority in the House and Senate, the groups say, they aim to force change through legislation, rather than just pleading with the companies.



BTW, only jerks give posts with which they disagree a thumbs down.  Try making an argument.


----------



## Darkwind

Asclepias said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to do when the misinformation comes from those who are claiming they are trying to stop the 'misinformation'?
> 
> The single greatest control of misinformation is gaslighting those who would tell the truth and claim they are misinforming people.
> 
> He who controls the spice controls the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to the "do nothing because what if" method of problem solving.  That's called analysis paralysis.  There is a tried and true method of problem solving. Form a plan. Implement the plan. Analyze the results to see what you can do better. Wash and repeat.
Click to expand...

A republican method of solving issues.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> We already have reasonable limits on free speech. Slander, "fire in crowded theater", harassment - that kind of thing - are reasonably well defined. The last thing we want is a "Ministry of Truth", whereby the party in charge slams its vision of reality down our throats.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting we have any  government agency deciding what is true or not.  What I'm suggesting is organizations that amply and spread messages such as social media sites, use their discretion to limit the spread of misinformation which if followed would be a danger to public safety, health, or security.   Long before the Internet came along when we depended on newspapers for news, editors use their judgement as what was fit for print and what was not.  The same should apply to social media.


----------



## Ringtone

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> We already have reasonable limits on free speech. Slander, "fire in crowded theater", harassment - that kind of thing - are reasonably well defined. The last thing we want is a "Ministry of Truth", whereby the party in charge slams its vision of reality down our throats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not suggesting we have any  government agency deciding what is true or not.  What I'm suggesting is organizations that amply and spread messages such as social media sites, use their discretion to limit the spread of misinformation which if followed would be a danger to public safety, health, or security.   Long before the Internet came along when we depended on newspapers for news, editors use their judgement as what was fit for print and what was not.  The same should apply to social media.
Click to expand...

The same does apply to social media already.  How do you figure it doesn't?


----------



## Flopper

Blues Man said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd
Click to expand...

54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid.  In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.


----------



## HenryBHough

The Democrat party cannot achieve their full dictatorship so long as any free speech is allowed.

Then The Democrat Party will be liquidated for exercising any free speech at all because their Chinese Masters are less tolerant of spoken words than are they.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid.  In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.
Click to expand...

Woa you're going off the deep end here


----------



## Flopper

Ringtone said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> We already have reasonable limits on free speech. Slander, "fire in crowded theater", harassment - that kind of thing - are reasonably well defined. The last thing we want is a "Ministry of Truth", whereby the party in charge slams its vision of reality down our throats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not suggesting we have any  government agency deciding what is true or not.  What I'm suggesting is organizations that amply and spread messages such as social media sites, use their discretion to limit the spread of misinformation which if followed would be a danger to public safety, health, or security.   Long before the Internet came along when we depended on newspapers for news, editors use their judgement as what was fit for print and what was not.  The same should apply to social media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same does apply to social media already.  How do you figure it doesn't?
Click to expand...

When I say social media, I'm including message boards such as this, blogs, and all other sites that allow posts from the public to the public. Many of these sites do not outlaw much of any anything and most of those that do not enforce their rules.  Facebook is only one I know of that actually has the rules and enforces them to any extent all.


----------



## Dr Grump

9thIDdoc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
> Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.
Click to expand...

And when it effects others? Like blatant lies about elections? Misinformation about vaccinations. When it starts effecting peoples' lives in a negative way or undermines democratic institutions, then something has to be done.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:

You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
You can determine their real identity
You can prove that they actually did post the information
You can prove that what they posted is actually false
In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:
> 
> You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
> You can determine their real identity
> You can prove that they actually did post the information
> You can prove that what they posted is actually false
> In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.
Click to expand...

Oh please you can sue a ham and cheese sandwich


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:
> 
> You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
> You can determine their real identity
> You can prove that they actually did post the information
> You can prove that what they posted is actually false
> In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.
Click to expand...

By what estimation? In many, if not most, cases, all of the above can be established.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Flopper said:


> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment [sic], but because the people will demand it.



  We've already seen a clear demonstration of what happens when any power is allowed to define what constitutes _“dangerous misinformation”_, to censor it, and to punish people for communicating it.

  Of course, in typical Orwellian style, you're calling for censorship and suppression, for media to be controlled, in order to prevent media from being controlled.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers.
> 
> As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate
> 
> Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.
Click to expand...

The crux of problem is not the individual that creates the misinformation.  With a system of communications that connects billions of people, most being anonymous, there is no way to stop that from occurring.  The problem is the repeating and modifying of that information as it moves around the internet.  Those that control social media have the power to limit the spread. They just need the incentive to do so.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers.
> 
> As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate
> 
> Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crux of problem is not the individual that creates the misinformation.  With a system of communications that connects billions of people, most being anonymous, there is no way to stop that from occurring.  The problem is the repeating and modifying of that information as it moves around the internet.  Those that control social media have power to limit the spread. They just need the incentive to do so.
Click to expand...

So your saying it's a monopoly


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
> That is a fact.
> On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
> That, to me, is worse than the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:
> 
> You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
> You can determine their real identity
> You can prove that they actually did post the information
> You can prove that what they posted is actually false
> In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what estimation? In many, if not most, cases, all of the above can be established.
Click to expand...

Of course it's possible.  You just might be able to find out my true identity.  And if you're very lucky you might be able to prove that I  actually wrote the material and not my wife son or daughter or any one else that has access to my computer. And you might be able to prove what financial damages you suffered as result of my post.  However, what you can't do is get any money out me if I'm broke.  Libel is a civil case thus there is no punishment. It's just about money and if I have no money you get nothing.  No lawyer would take the case unless I was wealthy which I am not, thus all trial expense would fall on you.


----------



## surada

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



There have always been limits on free speech.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a starter, the media needs to label news as news and opinion as such. Of course, a lot more needs to be done, exactly what that is, I have no idea but we have to begin somewhere, because this nation cannot stand if we don't fix this.
> 
> 
> 
> And the media are at liberty to do that if they so desire - but the government has no place compelling them to do so through force of law.
Click to expand...

I agree, however, both goverment, private and public organizations can certainly apply pressure which can be just as effective as legislation.


----------



## EvMetro

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Commies are all for censorship.  Without censorship, commies can't exist.  Every thread on this site that discusses censorship is packed with lefties defending their precious censorship.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Flopper said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of USMB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't find any rule on USMB that restricts posting dangerous misinformation.
Click to expand...

What *who* considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dr Grump said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
> Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when it effects others? Like blatant lies about elections? Misinformation about vaccinations. When it starts effecting peoples' lives in a negative way or undermines democratic institutions, then something has to be done.
Click to expand...

You mean the lie that Biden won an honest election? Thought you liked that lie.


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid.  In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woa you're going off the deep end here
Click to expand...

I don't think so.  If the founders had seen the almost unspeakable internet pornography children are exposed to today  under the guise of freedom of speech, the inciting of riots, and misinformation sickening and killing people, they probably would have ban the internet.  The point being, the founders wrote the constitution based on the world as it was then.


----------



## Flopper

9thIDdoc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of USMB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't find any rule on USMB that restricts posting dangerous misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What *who* considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?
Click to expand...

That decision should be made by the people and enforced by the people not the government.   The American people have the power to force social media to control the spread of misinformation and lies.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Flopper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of USMB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't find any rule on USMB that restricts posting dangerous misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What *who* considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That decision should be made by the people and enforced by the people not the government.   The American people have the power to force social media to control the spread of misinformation and lies.
Click to expand...

So when "the people" can fully agree on what "dangerous misinformation" is maybe that can happen. Of course if people could agree on what dangerous misinformation is they would already know better than to follow it so I'm not sure there is a point. I think you're dreaming. Also not sure if this thread doesn't qualify as dangerous misinformation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> That maybe so but sites such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, webhosting services, and messages boards such as USMB are not required to supply a megaphone to those who consistently shout lies and misinformation.


Correct.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

9thIDdoc said:


> What *who* considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?


Private social media decide, private citizens in the context of private society decide. 

Government does not decide.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.


Actually not. 

It was not the Framers’ intent that the press and private citizens be at liberty to say or print anything at all with impunity; private citizens could denounce, boycott, and condemn speech that private society considered to be inappropriate and dangerous. 

It was Framer’ intent that government not make such determinations.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *who* considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?
> 
> 
> 
> Private social media decide, private citizens in the context of private society decide.
> 
> Government does not decide.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather big business/media decide. Not me.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> I agree, however, both goverment, private and public organizations can certainly apply pressure which can be just as effective as legislation.


Private, yes; government, no. 

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to private social media the makeup of their content. 

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to private social media who will or will not be allowed to participate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

surada said:


> There have always been limits on free speech.


True, both as a matter of law and private society. 

First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.  

Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> Commies


lol


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.




Do you believe that President Trump said that w.s. were "very fine people"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> The point being, the founders wrote the constitution based on the world as it was then.


Incorrect. 

The Supreme Court has consistently held that advances in technology do not mitigate the rights and protected liberties enshrined in the Constitution; radio, television, and the internet are all within the scope of the First Amendment.


----------



## surada

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have always been limits on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> True, both as a matter of law and private society.
> 
> First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.
> 
> Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.
Click to expand...


Thank you so much.. Do you suppose Trumpies don't know that?


----------



## Flopper

EvMetro said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Commies are all for censorship.  Without censorship, commies can't exist.  Every thread on this site that discusses censorship is packed with lefties defending their precious censorship.
Click to expand...

Any time I see the word  Commies I bypass the post.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



What you suggest is incredibly dangerous, but was predicted years ago.  Hence, the term "Orwellian."


----------



## Asclepias

Flopper said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers.
> 
> As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate
> 
> Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crux of problem is not the individual that creates the misinformation.  With a system of communications that connects billions of people, most being anonymous, there is no way to stop that from occurring.  The problem is the repeating and modifying of that information as it moves around the internet.  Those that control social media have the power to limit the spread. They just need the incentive to do so.
Click to expand...

Their algorithms are based on the incentive to make money.  They know misinformation is more attractive to less intelligent people and they know the vast majority of Dump supporters are woefully ignorant.  They are caught between their shareholders and doing what is right.


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.
> 
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie - as ignorant as it is idiotic.
> 
> Neither FB nor the government are engaging in ‘prior restraint.’
Click to expand...

Look up your sacred "case law", drive-by  peckerhead.









						Prior Restraint
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## EvMetro

Flopper said:


> Any time I see the word Commies I bypass the post.


Indeed, commies tend to hide in darkness.


----------



## Dr Grump

9thIDdoc said:


> You mean the lie that Biden won an honest election? Thought you liked that lie.


Not a lie.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dogmaphobe said:


> In the U.K, you get thrown in jail if you object to racist Pakistani goons gang raping your children


Only in the mind of the ignorant.


----------



## there4eyeM

There are limits on free speech. They are called decorum, politeness, discernment...
Self imposed limits are the only tolerable ones. Civility should be the common denominator.


----------



## Colin norris

Oddball said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.
> 
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.
Click to expand...


You're not half paranoid about trump getting kicked of fb.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Colin norris said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.
> 
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not half paranoid about trump getting kicked of fb.
Click to expand...

what does that even mean?


----------



## AMart

Asclepias said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Myspace is still here.
Click to expand...

LOL liar. You spread misinformation. Your speech should be banned. Myspace is Facebook.
Connect with People​Sign in with your Facebook account to find friends who are already on Myspace!




__





						Find Search New People on Myspace
					

Discover New People on Myspace, a place where people come to connect, discover, and share.




					myspace.com


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



Yes. All rights have limits. 

Basically rights are "you can do whatever you like as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights". So anything that infringes on the rights of others is a limit.


----------



## SweetSue92

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.

The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.

Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.


----------



## Blues Man

Asclepias said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats only true if their stupidity doesn't have any affect on you.
Click to expand...

It doesn't 

I got vaccinated


----------



## surada

EvMetro said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time I see the word Commies I bypass the post.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, commies tend to hide in darkness.
Click to expand...


*According to Trumpies 81 million Americans are Commies and traitors to include over 300 Electoral College votes*


----------



## surada

SweetSue92 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
Click to expand...


Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.


----------



## SweetSue92

surada said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
Click to expand...


Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Blues Man

Flopper said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid.  In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.
Click to expand...

With freedom comes risk.

And I disagree that all teens aren't dumb


----------



## Blues Man

Dr Grump said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
> Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when it effects others? Like blatant lies about elections? Misinformation about vaccinations. When it starts effecting peoples' lives in a negative way or undermines democratic institutions, then something has to be done.
Click to expand...

What makes you think those people would do anything differently if speech was regulated by the government.

This is just confirmation bias.  People look for validation of the dumb shit they believe.


----------



## Blues Man

Flopper said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid.  In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woa you're going off the deep end here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think so.  If the founders had seen the almost unspeakable internet pornography children are exposed to today  under the guise of freedom of speech, the inciting of riots, and misinformation sickening and killing people, they probably would have ban the internet.  The point being, the founders wrote the constitution based on the world as it was then.
Click to expand...

I doubt that.

The founders understood that there is risk in freedom and that people have the right to make their own decisions even if you disagree with those decisions


----------



## surada

SweetSue92 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


*This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.

Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.*


----------



## 22lcidw

surada said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
Click to expand...

Our nation has been dying slowly. The revelation that most of the media are shills for Progressive Socialist agendas is near a death knell for it. They investigate so little on Prog politicians. And those that do may end up in cement shoes at the bottom of the sea. Every Repub president is belittled by them. Reagan was belittled by the then social media system. Investigation of the Biden family is warranted. Yet nothing. Investigation of the Clinton family is warranted. Yet nothing. Investigation of some powerful Prog politicians in D.C. is warranted. Yet nothing.


----------



## surada

22lcidw said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our nation has been dying slowly. The revelation that most of the media are shills for Progressive Socialist agendas is near a death knell for it. They investigate so little on Prog politicians. And those that do may end up in cement shoes at the bottom of the sea. Every Repub president is belittled by them. Reagan was belittled by the then social media system. Investigation of the Biden family is warranted. Yet nothing. Investigation of the Clinton family is warranted. Yet nothing. Investigation of some powerful Prog politicians in D.C. is warranted. Yet nothing.
Click to expand...


Bill O'Reilly is suing media outlets for reporting that his rally sales are slow and Trump tried to stop the publication of 5 books in the past two years.. Remember?


----------



## SweetSue92

surada said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.
> 
> Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.*
Click to expand...


I understand that. The problem would be if the US gov came to USMB and said we need to see what the people on your board are saying because we don't like it. 

Not because it's dire threat to US natl security

Just because we don't like it.

THAT is a big violation of the First Amendment


----------



## surada

SweetSue92 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.
> 
> Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. The problem would be if the US gov came to USMB and said we need to see what the people on your board are saying because we don't like it.
> 
> Not because it's dire threat to US natl security
> 
> Just because we don't like it.
> 
> THAT is a big violation of the First Amendment
Click to expand...


Misinformation during a pandemic seems serious to me.


----------



## dblack

Here ya go Flopper - the GOP is right there with ya:









						House lawmakers form new caucus to rein in Big Tech
					

The Freedom from Big Tech Caucus will be led by Reps. Ken Buck of Colorado and Lance Gooden of Texas. Other founding members include Reps. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Burgess Owens of Utah and Paul Gosar of Arizona.




					www.foxbusiness.com


----------



## SweetSue92

surada said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.
> 
> Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. The problem would be if the US gov came to USMB and said we need to see what the people on your board are saying because we don't like it.
> 
> Not because it's dire threat to US natl security
> 
> Just because we don't like it.
> 
> THAT is a big violation of the First Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misinformation during a pandemic seems serious to me.
Click to expand...


Nope. The US Govt doesn't get to tell us we can't say stuff cause there's a virus.

Try it. In the Supreme Court. Do it.


----------



## surada

SweetSue92 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.
> 
> Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. The problem would be if the US gov came to USMB and said we need to see what the people on your board are saying because we don't like it.
> 
> Not because it's dire threat to US natl security
> 
> Just because we don't like it.
> 
> THAT is a big violation of the First Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misinformation during a pandemic seems serious to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The US Govt doesn't get to tell us we can't say stuff cause there's a virus.
> 
> Try it. In the Supreme Court. Do it.
Click to expand...


Do you think the Supreme Court would agree to hear such a case? Spreading false medical information is dangerous. Do you agree?

Telling people to inject bleach to fight Covid seems like practicing medicine without a license to me.


----------



## SweetSue92

surada said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling "Fire" (emergency, act quickly!) in a crowded theater (captive audience) is much different than putting disputable opinions and facts on the internet.
> 
> The govt has no right to meddle in what a free people want to say online UNLESS they are organizing to do something that would cause a fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> Talking about medicine, even if the govt claims PANDEMIC!, does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Facebook and Twitter are private.... but NewsMax can still spread lies and hysteria so there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.
> 
> Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. The problem would be if the US gov came to USMB and said we need to see what the people on your board are saying because we don't like it.
> 
> Not because it's dire threat to US natl security
> 
> Just because we don't like it.
> 
> THAT is a big violation of the First Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misinformation during a pandemic seems serious to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The US Govt doesn't get to tell us we can't say stuff cause there's a virus.
> 
> Try it. In the Supreme Court. Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think the Supreme Court would agree to hear such a case? Spreading false medical information is dangerous. Do you agree?
> 
> Telling people to inject bleach to fight Covid seems like practicing medicine without a license to me.
Click to expand...


It's immaterial if it's "dangerous".

Are you even American? I don't argue these things with non-Americans. They typically cannot even wrap their heads around it.

And don't bother to lie. I will look back and discover it.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Flopper said:


> Any time I see the word  Commies I bypass the post.


 Yes, you do not want to be criticized.

You simply want to impose, limit and control.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Captain Caveman said:


> Only in the mind of the ignorant.


I am not in the least bit ignorant of the way Tommy Robinson has been treated as a warning to all you sheeple to look the other way when Pakistani men rape your children.  You claim to have free speech, but he was arrested for expressing his, then tried and thrown in the gulag all within hours in a prearranged plot to intimidate any who might otherwise oppose the rape of your children by these foreign invaders.


----------



## Mac1958

Flopper said:


> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


I've always, always been a rabid defender and advocate of freedom of expression.  Not just Freedom of Speech as defined by the Constitution, but as broad a definition as possible.  Yes, there are exceptions to every rule -- shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, "bomb" in an airport, directly inciting crime, stuff like that -- but otherwise I want to know what people are thinking and who agrees with them.  That can only be accomplished with freedom of expression.

But goddamn, I suspect the Founders made certain assumptions, one of which is that we would not allow ourselves to literally lie our way into separate, competing realities like this.  Their expectations of us proved to be too high, and now we have so many craven propagandists who are enabled to leverage their freedom of expression to just make reality up as they go.

You make a terribly important point, _*and this is what truly concerns me about this:*_  If we continue choosing to do this, if we can't practice freedom of expression in good faith, then we are just INVITING an authoritarian government intrusion into our lives.  If that happens, all these people who are pushing and enabling this alternate universe will be the first to claim victimhood.  And that will be the most ironic moment of all.


----------



## Desperado

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> It was not the Framers’ intent that the press and private citizens be at liberty to say or print anything at all with impunity; private citizens could denounce, boycott, and condemn speech that private society considered to be inappropriate and dangerous.
> 
> It was Framer’ intent that government not make such determinations.
Click to expand...

How the hell doyou know what the framers intent was?  Doyu have inside information or is that your personal opinion?   Speaking of personal opinions willthe government censor your personal opinion if it goes against their agenda?


----------



## Mac-7

Mac1958 said:


> I've always, always been a rabid defender and advocate of freedom of expression.


What a pointless post

You ramble on for 3 paragraphs without saying anything specific

What do you want?

Let me hazard a guess

And end to conservative talk radio and Fox News 

Right?


----------



## Mac-7

Flopper said:


> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?

I suppose if we only get one “truth” as they do in china, New Zealand, or Mac1958 dream world that would promote a form of domestic tranquility that we dont have in America

But its not a country I want to live in


----------



## dblack

Mac-7 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?
Click to expand...


To be fair, Flopper specifically mentions "government controlling media" as the result if we don't do something. So I assume the something he has in mind isn't legislative. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with some kind of professional organization that tries to offer some kind of assurance of quality and veracity among its members.

But politicians rarely settle for that. They'll move in before anything like that can be developed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

surada said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have always been limits on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> True, both as a matter of law and private society.
> 
> First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.
> 
> Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you so much.. Do you suppose Trumpies don't know that?
Click to expand...

Whether they know it or not, ultimately they don’t care. 

Like Trump himself, Trump’s authoritarian supporters have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, in this case the First Amendment. 

They’d gladly use the authority of the state to violate the First Amendment rights of social media.


----------



## surada

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have always been limits on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> True, both as a matter of law and private society.
> 
> First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.
> 
> Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you so much.. Do you suppose Trumpies don't know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether they know it or not, ultimately they don’t care.
> 
> Like Trump himself, Trump’s authoritarian supporters have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, in this case the First Amendment.
> 
> They’d gladly use the authority of the state to violate the First Amendment rights of social media.
Click to expand...


I know........


----------



## Mac-7

dblack said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, Flopper specifically mentions "government controlling media" as the result if we don't do something. So I assume the something he has in mind isn't legislative. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with some kind of professional organization that tries to offer some kind of assurance of quality and veracity among its members.
> 
> But politicians rarely settle for that. They'll move in before anything like that can be developed.
Click to expand...

FaceBook, Twitter and other social media are working closely with biden to shield the public from facts or opinions that the Potus disagrees with

There are do many pressure points in broadcasting that a lib like biden can exploit that any “private” commission would eventually become a front group for the democrats


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oddball said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ever hear of a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of MySpace?  They WERE a big deal and now their gone.  Nothing is permanent about anything.  If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out?  Reagan would be embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.
> 
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie - as ignorant as it is idiotic.
> 
> Neither FB nor the government are engaging in ‘prior restraint.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up your sacred "case law", drive-by  peckerhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior Restraint
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...

It’s often said - and it’s indeed true - that the First Amendment is intended to defend and protect the rights of the most unpopular speech and the most hated speakers from attack by government seeking to silence that unpopular speech and hated speaker. 

Social media is very much hated, and conservatives in fact seek to silence social media using the power of the state; thankfully - at this point at least - the First Amendment prohibits conservatives from doing so.


----------



## dblack

Mac-7 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, Flopper specifically mentions "government controlling media" as the result if we don't do something. So I assume the something he has in mind isn't legislative. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with some kind of professional organization that tries to offer some kind of assurance of quality and veracity among its members.
> 
> But politicians rarely settle for that. They'll move in before anything like that can be developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FaceBook, Twitter and other social media are working closely with biden to shield the public from facts or opinions that the Potus disagrees with
> 
> There are do many pressure points in broadcasting that a lib like biden can exploit that any “private” commission would eventually become a front group for the democrats
Click to expand...

It's possible. But as long as they have no legislative power, such a commission could be easily ignored. And likely would be, if they couldn't convince the public that they were non-partisan.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

there4eyeM said:


> There are limits on free speech. They are called decorum, politeness, discernment...
> Self imposed limits are the only tolerable ones. Civility should be the common denominator.


Correct - as intended by the Framers. 

That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘political correctness’ or ‘cancel culture,’ it was the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, and limit it accordingly, absent interference by government or the courts.


----------



## Mac-7

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> it was the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, and limit it accordingly, absent interference by government or the courts.


It was not the framers intent that newspapers publish only the opinions of liberals and suspend the accounts of conservatives

Which FaceBook and Twitter among others are doing


----------



## K9Buck

Yes, only views that align with those of Joe Biden should be permitted to be expressed.


----------



## K9Buck

Mac-7 said:


> It was not the framers intent that newspapers publish only the opinions of liberals and suspend the accounts of conservatives


It's pointless to try and reason with the resident leftists.  They are liars and FOOLS.  I have well over 100 of them on "ignore" because all they do is lie and they offer nothing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

surada said:


> Spreading false medical information is dangerous.


The question is does this rise to the level of the press reporting troop movements during a time of war, the courts have held that government prohibiting the press from doing so is lawful and does not violate the First Amendment.


----------



## dblack

Mac-7 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> it was the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, and limit it accordingly, absent interference by government or the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not the framers intent that newspapers publish only the opinions of liberals and suspend the accounts of conservatives
Click to expand...


It was the framers intent that government have no power to dictate what newspapers publish.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Mac-7 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, Flopper specifically mentions "government controlling media" as the result if we don't do something. So I assume the something he has in mind isn't legislative. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with some kind of professional organization that tries to offer some kind of assurance of quality and veracity among its members.
> 
> But politicians rarely settle for that. They'll move in before anything like that can be developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FaceBook, Twitter and other social media are working closely with biden to shield the public from facts or opinions that the Potus disagrees with
> 
> There are do many pressure points in broadcasting that a lib like biden can exploit that any “private” commission would eventually become a front group for the democrats
Click to expand...

So we have a new dictator?


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s often said - and it’s indeed true - that the First Amendment is intended to defend and protect the rights of the most unpopular speech and the most hated speakers from attack by government seeking to silence that unpopular speech and hated speaker.
> 
> Social media is very much hated, and conservatives in fact seek to silence social media using the power of the state; thankfully - at this point at least - the First Amendment prohibits conservatives from doing so.


Lying out your ass and projecting: it's what you do.

Fact remains that what antisocial media is doing falls well into the illegal behavior of prior restraint.....It's  fascist asswipes like you who detest the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Mac-7

dblack said:


> It was the framers intent that government have no power to dictate what newspapers publish.


Neither do I

I want to break up FaceBook the way TDR broke up Standard Oil


bear513 said:


> So we have a new dictator?


a wannabe

but not quite there yet


----------



## Oddball

dblack said:


> It was the framers intent that government have no power to dictate what newspapers publish.


Fascistbook and Twaffler are claiming that they're "platforms" (i.e. an open public square) not "publishers" (i.e. newspapers).

You're not so thick as to not know the difference....So why are you playing dumb?


----------



## dblack

Oddball said:


> Fascistbook and Twaffler are claiming that they're "platforms" (i.e. an open public square) not "publishers" (i.e. newspapers).
> 
> You're not so thick as to not know the difference....So why are you playing dumb?


LOL - love it when you whip out the same tired statist arguments that Dems do when they're trying to justify a power grab. 

"public square" - good one!


----------



## Oddball

dblack said:


> LOL - love it when you whip out the same tired statist arguments that Dems do when they're trying to justify a power grab.
> 
> "public square" - good one!


Gotta love when apologists for big corporate monopolizers deflect from the main point....Antisocial media companies are acting as publishers, not platforms.....Now they're colluding with The State to control the flow of information, and fake glibertarian sellouts like you don't GAF.


----------



## dblack

Oddball said:


> Gotta love when apologists for big corporate monopolizers deflect from the main point....Antisocial media companies are acting as publishers, not platforms.....Now they're colluding with The State to control the flow of information, and fake glibertarian sellouts like you don't GAF.



Ahhh.. the 'fake' libertarian horseshit...  I'm surprised you can still spell "libertarian". Big daddy government will save you from mean ole Facebook. Just whine louder.


----------



## Oddball

dblack said:


> Ahhh.. the 'fake' libertarian horseshit...  I'm surprised you can still spell "libertarian". Big daddy government will save you from mean ole Facebook. Just whine louder.


I'm not the apologist for monopolists, Corky....Fakes gonna fake.


----------



## dblack

Oddball said:


> I'm not the apologist for monopolists, Corky....Fakes gonna fake.



"Monopoly" - another good one. Bernie would be proud.


----------



## Oddball

dblack said:


> "Monopoly" - another good one. Bernie would be proud.


The monopolies are defacto, as the principles in question -Google included- control nearly all the traffic.....They only enjoy the protections they have through gubmint action (i.e. Section 230), which is almost always the source of monopolies, and you damn well know it....Or maybe you're playng stupid again.

BTW, Standard Oil didn't control 100% of the petroleum market when they declared a monopoly and were broken up.


----------



## dblack

Oddball said:


> The monopolies are defacto, as the principles in question -Google included- control nearly all the traffic.....They only enjoy the protections they have through gubmint action (i.e. Section 230), which is almost always the source of monopolies, and you damn well know it....Or maybe you're playng stupid again.
> 
> BTW, Standard Oil didn't control 100% of the petroleum market when they declared a monopoly and were broken up.



When statists start yammering about monopolies, it pretty much always translates to: "They have a lot power. And we want it!"

Facebook is in no way, "defacto" or otherwise, a monopoly. But they do have a lot of power to influence people - and ambitious politicians, in both parties, really, really want that power for themselves.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dogmaphobe said:


> I am not in the least bit ignorant of the way Tommy Robinson has been treated as a warning to all you sheeple to look the other way when Pakistani men rape your children.  You claim to have free speech, but he was arrested for expressing his, then tried and thrown in the gulag all within hours in a prearranged plot to intimidate any who might otherwise oppose the rape of your children by these foreign invaders.


Yes, you are ignorant.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

surada said:


> Misinformation during a pandemic seems serious to me.



  The so-called _“pandemic”_ was, itself, almost entirely based on misinformation, on grotesque exaggerations and outright lies about what, in reality, was nothing more than a routine flu outbreak.  On the use of fearmongering and misinformation by corrupt politicians to seize and abuse power over us to which they have no legitimate claim.

  What you want to suppress as _“misinformation”_ is those of us calling out this abusive hoax for what it truly is.  This makes you complicit in the hoax and the accompanying abuse, as guilty as those directly responsible for it.

  When we finally throw this hoax off, take our freedoms back, and start holding accountable those who imposed this bullshit on us, we will not forget willing accessories such as yourself.

  You should be very worried.  You chose the wrong side, and the consequences will come back to bite you.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, you are ignorant.


Not on the least, but of repeating stupid words over and over makes you feel better about yourself, boy child, then go for it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Mac1958 said:


> I've always, always been a rabid defender and advocate of freedom of expression. Not just Freedom of Speech as defined by the Constitution, but as broad a definition as possible.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Asclepias said:


> Yep.


So your position is that the phone company should be able to disconnect your line if they don't like what you are saying on it or who you are making calls to?  You do realize that there is no true competition for phone companies in the USA?  All the "competition" uses the phone company's cables, and often its electronics as well to get to their customers.  That's a really stupid position to take.  Either a carrier is absolutely neutral or it isn't. ATT tried to refuse to carry porn telephone lines back in the eighties and the courts ruled that they had to provide service as they were a neutral carrier.  Why should Facebook and others like it be any different?  There is already a existing remedy for people spreading lies.  You sue them for libel in the courts.  If you prove your case they have to stop and often make you rich in the process.


----------



## Mac1958

Bob Blaylock said:


> View attachment 514275


----------



## Asclepias

AZrailwhale said:


> So your position is that the phone company should be able to disconnect your line if they don't like what you are saying on it or who you are making calls to?  You do realize that there is no trial competitor for phone companies in the USA?  All the "competition" uses the phone company's cables, and often its electronics as well to get to their customers.  That's a really stupid position to take.  Either a carrier is absolutely neutral or it isn't. ATT tried to refuse to carry porn telephone lines back in the eighties and the courts ruled that they had to provide service as they were a neutral carrier.  Why should Facebook and others like it be any different?


*"So your position is that the phone company should be able to disconnect your line if they don't like what you are saying on it or who you are making calls to?"*

How did you get that out of what I said?  Are you retarded or just slow?


----------



## surada

SweetSue92 said:


> It's immaterial if it's "dangerous".
> 
> Are you even American? I don't argue these things with non-Americans. They typically cannot even wrap their heads around it.
> 
> And don't bother to lie. I will look back and discover it.



Yeah. I'm an American..My family has been here since the 1600s. 

It is relevant to give dangerous medical advice.. You aren't very bright. Don't bother to post to me again.


----------



## surada

Asclepias said:


> *"So your position is that the phone company should be able to disconnect your line if they don't like what you are saying on it or who you are making calls to?"*
> 
> How did you get that out of what I said?  Are you retarded or just slow?



Maybe retarded.. Yeah, my money is on retarded.


----------



## SweetSue92

surada said:


> Yeah. I'm an American..My family has been here since the 1600s.
> 
> It is relevant to give dangerous medical advice.. You aren't very bright. Don't bother to post to me again.



Then you should move. You don't even like nor endorse our FIRST amendment. Really, go. Move.

PS

My ancestors fought for the Patriots in the Revolutionary War and the Union in the Civil War.

Probably your ancestors were Tories.


----------



## Dr Grump

Oddball said:


> A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.
> 
> 
> Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.


Total horseshit. You live in a world where you want anybody to lie constantly, which in turn has a negative impact on millions of people. Start at the truth. It will set you free. The lying sack of shit **** Trump, can start his own fucking social media platform. Why doesn't he? Because only his Kool-Aid, acolyte, sycophantic dweebs who can't think for themselves would follow him. That's why. And he wouldn't be able to moneterise it - after all, moolah is his God.


----------



## Flopper

9thIDdoc said:


> So when "the people" can fully agree on what "dangerous misinformation" is maybe that can happen. Of course if people could agree on what dangerous misinformation is they would already know better than to follow it so I'm not sure there is a point. I think you're dreaming. Also not sure if this thread doesn't qualify as dangerous misinformation.


You're missing my point. When people believe dangerous misinformation is being spread by any of the major social media companies, they register a complain with FTC and the company.   There isn't much can done about bulletin boards, and blogs.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> The Supreme Court has consistently held that advances in technology do not mitigate the rights and protected liberties enshrined in the Constitution; radio, television, and the internet are all within the scope of the First Amendment.


I agree with your statement but I believe the world in 1776 and 2020 is so vastly different that if the founders wrote the constitution today understanding how the country functions, there would be significant difference.  Rights in the constitution would be there with only a few minor changes. I think they would address subjects such as immigration, race, voting rights, limit powers of the executive branch, address the supreme court, eliminate the electoral college, , and considering the impact of Internet they might well have something to say about that.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> I agree with your statement but I believe the world in 1776 and 2020 is so vastly different that if the founders wrote the constitution today there would be significant difference.  Rights in the constitution would be there with only a few with minor changes. I think they would address subjects such as immigration, race, voting rights, limit powers of executive branch, and eliminate the electoral college which is there principally because they feared giving the people the power of the vote.


Another anti electoral college are we?, explains a lot


----------



## Flopper

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> What you suggest is incredibly dangerous, but was predicted years ago.  Hence, the term "Orwellian."


With the advent of the Internet, principally the World Wide Wide,  the belief  that freedom of speech without limit is a constitution right.  That of course is not so.  The first amendment bars *only government* from abridging freedom of speech.  

It is perfectly legal for internet providers, search engine providers, social media sites, news and opinion sites, businesses etc to do content filtering.  In fact, most do to some extent now.   Prior to the Internet, newspapers, TV, and radio filtered content.   Remember the New York Times slogan, "All the news that is fit to print".   These organizations filtered content because the public demanded. it. And this is how we should filter content today, in response to public demand.  This begins with educating public and establishing a means for the public to request certain types of content be blocked.  This won't stop all such content, nor should it.   However it can serve as a limiting factor in the propagandizing of the country with misleading dangerous, and false information.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> With the advent of the Internet, principally the World Wide Wide,  the belief  that freedom of speech without limit is a constitution right.  That of course is not so.  The first amendment bars *only government* from abridging freedom of speech.
> 
> It is perfectly legal for internet providers, search engine providers, social media sites, news and opinion sites, businesses etc to do content filtering.  In fact, most do to some extent now.   Prior to the Internet, newspapers, TV, and radio filtered content.   Remember the New York Times slogan, "All the news that is fit to print".   These organizations filtered content because the public demanded. it. And this is how we should filter content today, in response to public demand.  This begins with educating public and establishing a means for the public to request certain types of content be blocked.  This won't stop all such content, nor should it.   However it can serve as a limiting factor in the propagandizing of the country with misleading dangerous, and false information.


Yep. Republicans used to get this. Most probably still do. Just not when it impacts them.


----------



## Flopper

SweetSue92 said:


> Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.


I don't see many people in favor of goverment censoring.  This is a job for content providers and social media providers backed by public demand.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> I don't see many people in favor of goverment censoring.  This is a job for content providers and social media providers backed by public demand.



Agreed. The last thing we want is for this to become a political concern.


----------



## Flopper

surada said:


> *This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.
> 
> Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.*


I think they are suing for damages due false statements (libel).
Yes, this Board is private just as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media is.  If members don't want to see misinformation that is a danger to the public being spread they can make their voices heard and many social media organizations will respond.  However, there will always be some organization that believe in total freedom of speech regardless of the consequences.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Flopper said:


> With the advent of the Internet, principally the World Wide Wide,  the belief  that freedom of speech without limit is a constitution right.  That of course is not so.  The first amendment bars *only government* from abridging freedom of speech.
> 
> It is perfectly legal for internet providers, search engine providers, social media sites, news and opinion sites, businesses etc to do content filtering.  In fact, most do to some extent now.   Prior to the Internet, newspapers, TV, and radio filtered content.   Remember the New York Times slogan, "All the news that is fit to print".   These organizations filtered content because the public demanded. it. And this is how we should filter content today, in response to public demand.  This begins with educating public and establishing a means for the public to request certain types of content be blocked.  This won't stop all such content, nor should it.   However it can serve as a limiting factor in the propagandizing of the country with misleading dangerous, and false information.



I never said private entities could not regulate their platforms, but you seemed to infer that the government should be.  If I misunderstood that then disregard.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Just read that alleged federal government is "advising" FB on "disinformation". Advising?


----------



## Likkmee

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Sniff it before likkit


----------



## Likkmee

9thIDdoc said:


> Just read that alleged federal government is "advising" FB on "disinformation". Advising?


Well. People who have Facebook are complete assholes so fukkem'
tweet that !


----------



## Flopper

Dogmaphobe said:


> Yes, you do not want to be criticized.
> 
> You simply want to impose, limit and control.


The world Commie is a dated derogatory slang for Communists. I have found that most all posts that use the word are filled with boring repetitive propaganda and not worth time.


----------



## Flopper

Mac-7 said:


> FaceBook, Twitter and other social media are working closely with biden to shield the public from facts or opinions that the Potus disagrees with
> 
> There are do many pressure points in broadcasting that a lib like biden can exploit that any “private” commission would eventually become a front group for the democrats


And one of  the most power tools is the bully pulpit.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> To be fair, Flopper specifically mentions "government controlling media" as the result if we don't do something. So I assume the something he has in mind isn't legislative. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with some kind of professional organization that tries to offer some kind of assurance of quality and veracity among its members.
> 
> But politicians rarely settle for that. They'll move in before anything like that can be developed.


*Typically, when society is unable to control harmful elements, it opens the door for government to control them.  For example the Communist Chinese Party got control of the country by ending a 20 year civil and ending control by war lords. Under Mao, the central government  unified the country, ended foreign domination, and made possible class mobility. Mao's successors maintain the control by improving lives of peasants and farmers followed by an industrially revolution.  

In the US, the inability of society to end the ruthless and unethical business practices of the robbery barons in the 19th century lead to government controls on business which ultimately lead to regulated capitalisms.    If we don't get control of the rapid rise in misinformation (fake news), government will. *


----------



## Flopper

Mac-7 said:


> It was not the framers intent that newspapers publish only the opinions of liberals and suspend the accounts of conservatives
> 
> Which FaceBook and Twitter among others are doing


I doubt the framers were very concerned with newspapers.  There were only 37 newspapers in the American colonies in 1775.  They were all one page weeklies that concentrated on local news, announcements, and advertisements.  Most of them were produced by print shops.  The staff usually consisted of the editor who wrote everything and the printer who printed it. They were essentially a loss leader whose purpose was to promote business for the print shop.  It wasn't until about 1775 that newspapers started to include political news.  Although over half the colonists were literate, most news was spread by word of mouth by town criers and at taverns.

I really doubt the framers were very concerned what the man on the street thought.  They were not the people that would be making the decisions on the revolution, the new country ,or their leaders because only 1 in 5 were allowed to vote, free, white, male, property owners over 21.   I think most of the framers would be horrified by universal suffrage.  If they knew that the country's leaders would be selected by Blacks', women, non-property owners, the poor, and the homeless, they probably would have remained loyal to the crown and we would  be celebrating the king's birth day.   



			Colonial Print Culture · News in Colonial America · The News Media and the Making of America, 1730-1865
		









						PolitiFact - Mark Pocan says less than 25 percent of population could vote when Constitution was written
					

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, earned a True on the Truth-O-Meter in 2013 when he declared that "Nothing in the Consti




					www.politifact.com


----------



## FreeThink

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And?
> 
> The problem is authoritarians who seek to violate the First Amendment by subjecting social media to unwarranted regulation and restriction.
> 
> Don’t like how a given platform conducts business, then don’t participate.


Free trade capitalism thus defended, what about the critique of "squelching" opinions while the subject is still under debate.  Scientists started with the animal-to-man vector theory, but when the lab-leak theory became more plausible, their was egg on the face of Facebook. Twitter squelched the story about Hunter Biden, but all that proved to be true, and worse.  Amazon squelched Parler.  The Cancel Culture is the problem.  Authoritarianism here is not the problem.


----------



## Flopper

Bob Blaylock said:


> The so-called _“pandemic”_ was, itself, almost entirely based on misinformation, on grotesque exaggerations and outright lies about what, in reality, was nothing more than a routine flu outbreak.  On the use of fearmongering and misinformation by corrupt politicians to seize and abuse power over us to which they have no legitimate claim.
> 
> What you want to suppress as _“misinformation”_ is those of us calling out this abusive hoax for what it truly is.  This makes you complicit in the hoax and the accompanying abuse, as guilty as those directly responsible for it.
> 
> When we finally throw this hoax off, take our freedoms back, and start holding accountable those who imposed this bullshit on us, we will not forget willing accessories such as yourself.
> 
> You should be very worried.  You chose the wrong side, and the consequences will come back to bite you.


By definition a pandemic is an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people.  So you don't believe Covid-19 is a pandemic with over 191 million case in 220 countries and over 4.1 million deaths?

By comparison the season flu kills an average of 648,000 worldwide.  Covid-19 has killed 6 times as many.
If this is not a pandemic, in your opinion what would constitute a pandemic?

BTW Covid-19 is caused by a virus in the Coronavirus family.  All cases of the common flu are caused by viruses from the family _Orthomyxoviridae_.  The only similar between covid-19 and the flu is they are both respiratory diseases.


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> Another anti electoral college are we?, explains a lot


The Electoral College was a comprise between those that favored allowing citizens to select the nation's leadership and those that didn't.   Most of founders feared giving the people the power to select their leaders.  That is not the case today in either party.  However, the party that loose power by abolishing of the Electoral College will oppose it.  Today it's the republicans but that has not always been the case and probably won't in the future.  Someday when abandoning the electoral college does not favor either party, we'll get rid of it and go with the popular vote.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> The Electoral College was a comprise between those that favored allowing citizens to select the nation's leadership and those that didn't.   Most of founders feared giving the people the power to select their leaders.  That is not the case today in either party.  However, the party that loose power by abolishing of the Electoral College will oppose it.  Today it's the republicans but that has not always been the case and probably won't in the future.  Someday when abandoning the electoral college does not favor either party, we'll get rid of it and go with the popular vote.


We are the United States of America, the great people of Des Moines Iowa morals is different then the great people from San Francisco


----------



## Mac-7

Flopper said:


> I really doubt the framers were very concerned what the man on the street thought. They were not the people that would be making the decisions on the revolution, the new country ,or their leaders because only 1 in 5 were allowed to vote, free, white, male, property owners over 21.


I think the common man’s opinion meant everything to the Framers 

Because without popular support there would be no revolution

And for that reason the newspapers and other print media were very important


----------



## Flopper

Mac-7 said:


> I think the common man’s opinion meant everything to the Framers
> 
> Because without popular support there would be no revolution
> 
> And for that reason the newspapers and other print media were very important


If the common man's opinion meant so much to them, why didn't they allow the people to vote for their president or for their senators? And why were they satisfied with only about 20% to 25% of the population being able to vote? 

 The earliest federal elections were far different than what they are today.  The polling places were typical in homes or businesses of wealthy land owners.  There were no federal requirements and few state requirements.  Often the owners of polling place would solicit the votes and report them.  Voting was often by show of hands or vocal.  Instead of a pollical event, voting was a social event. Spirts  were a major attraction.  In a number of states electors were not bound to follow the voters wishes.  In effect the vote was more of a poll to determine how voters felt. This was the environment in which the constitution was created and the nations leaders were selected.  For the common man who did not own property, voting was just a meeting of wealthy land owners to select a leader from one of their own.  It was a non-event.

When the nation was founded, it was still the age of aristocratic gentleman who ran the country and rich property owners who got them elected.  It would be over a half century before the age of the common man began where changes in states and federal laws made our elections more democrat by allowing non-property owners to vote and run for office.  Laws were passed forcing electors to vote in accordance with the decision of voters.  For the first time, the self-made man stood toe to toe with the aristocratic gentlemen.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> If the common man's opinion meant so much to them, why didn't they allow the people to vote for their president or for their senators. And why were they satisfied with only about 20% to 25% of the population being able to vote.
> 
> The earliest federal elections were far different than what they are today. The polling places were typical in homes are businesses of wealthy land owners. There were no federal requirements and few state requirements. Often the owners of polling place would solicit the votes and report them. Voting was often by show hands or vocal. Instead of a pollical event, voting was a social event. Spirts were a major attraction. In a number of states electors were not bound to follow the voters wishes. In effect the vote was more of a poll to determine how voters felt. This was the environment in which the constitution was created and the nations leaders were selected. For the common man who did not own property, voting was just a meeting of wealthy land owners. It was non-event.
> 
> When the nation was founded, it was still the age of aristocratic gentleman who ran the country and rich property owners who got them elected. It would be a over a half century before the age of the common man began where changes in states and federal laws made our elections more democrat by allowing non-property owners to vote and run for office and laws forcing electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote, etc.


For the most part true.

But this neither mitigates nor undermines the validity of the Framers’ intent that the people – not government, private citizens in the context of private society – should alone decide what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For the most part true.
> 
> But this neither mitigates nor undermines the validity of the Framers’ intent that the people – not government, private citizens in the context of private society – should alone decide what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.


I agree.


----------



## Mac-7

Flopper said:


> If the common man's opinion meant so much to them, why didn't they allow the people to vote for their president or for their senators? And why were they satisfied with only about 20% to 25% of the population being able to vote?
> 
> The earliest federal elections were far different than what they are today.  The polling places were typical in homes or businesses of wealthy land owners.  There were no federal requirements and few state requirements.  Often the owners of polling place would solicit the votes and report them.  Voting was often by show of hands or vocal.  Instead of a pollical event, voting was a social event. Spirts  were a major attraction.  In a number of states electors were not bound to follow the voters wishes.  In effect the vote was more of a poll to determine how voters felt. This was the environment in which the constitution was created and the nations leaders were selected.  For the common man who did not own property, voting was just a meeting of wealthy land owners to select a leader from one of their own.  It was a non-event.
> 
> When the nation was founded, it was still the age of aristocratic gentleman who ran the country and rich property owners who got them elected.  It would be over a half century before the age of the common man began where changes in states and federal laws made our elections more democrat by allowing non-property owners to vote and run for office.  Laws were passed forcing electors to vote in accordance with the decision of voters.  For the first time, the self-made man stood toe to toe with the aristocratic gentlemen.


I dont deny that it was what you called an age of aristocratic gentlemen.

Is that so bad?

They created a nation that has peacefully evolved into a more inclusive country today without a violent revolution every 20-30 years

So I think the founders done good


----------



## Flopper

Mac-7 said:


> I dont deny that it was what you called an age of aristocratic gentlemen.
> 
> Is that so bad?
> 
> They created a nation that has peacefully evolved into a more inclusive country today without a violent revolution every 20-30 years
> 
> So I think the founders done good


Whether it was good or bad is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that constitution was created by these men as were our laws for nearly 50 years. Thomas Paine pointed out that American aristocracy is painfully out of touch with the citizenry. And in fact, many of our Founding Fathers were, in fact, aristocrats who saw the world far differently than their bonded servants, share croppers, tenants, and tradesman.  These aristocrats were primarily concern with their freedom from England for themselves.  While they supported basic rights in constitution at the same time they were opposed to allowing the common people to choose our nations leaders.  What they saw of democracy in Europe they did not like.  Aristocrats handing from lamp posts was certainly on their mind. 

Founders such as Jefferson saw the common man as the heart of the nation and he was intent on seeing a constitution that provided equal rights for all.  However, when it came to selecting the leadership of the nation, most founders believe the leaders should be selected by new states. How they did that would be left to the states.  Thus the constitution has little to say about voting other than the states selection electors who would vote on the president, state legislatures would pick senators and the people would select the members of House.  They left it entirely up the states to decide who exactly were "the people" that would be voting.  As a result only about 20% to 25% of the people were allowed to vote but due to various laws and regulations in the states, the actually number voting was considering less.   Thus the privileged few selected the nations leadership and would for many years

The end of control by the aristocrats came with the election of Jackson.  For the first time non-properly owners were allowed to vote. This is considered by most historians as beginning of the age of the common man where control of government and much of business began shifting away from the aristocracy to the the self-made man.


----------



## woodwork201

That this thread even exists is all the proof in the world that there should be NO restriction on freedom of speech at all; period.  Sort of like the Founders said in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Then again, that this thread even exists is almost enough evidence that we should restrict the speech of stupid people who think free speech should be restricted.


----------



## Mac-7

Flopper said:


> Whether it was good or bad is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that constitution was created by these men as were our laws for nearly 50 years. Thomas Paine pointed out that American aristocracy is painfully out of touch with the citizenry. And in fact, many of our Founding Fathers were, in fact, aristocrats who saw the world far differently than their bonded servants, share croppers, tenants, and tradesman.  These aristocrats were primarily concern with their freedom from England for themselves.  While they supported basic rights in constitution at the same time they were opposed to allowing the common people to choose our nations leaders.  What they saw of democracy in Europe they did not like.  Aristocrats handing from lamp posts was certainly on their mind.
> 
> Founders such as Jefferson saw the common man as the heart of the nation and he was intent on seeing a constitution that provided equal rights for all.  However, when it came to selecting the leadership of the nation, most founders believe the leaders should be selected by new states. How they did that would be left to the states.  Thus the constitution has little to say about voting other than the states selection electors who would vote on the president, state legislatures would pick senators and the people would select the members of House.  They left it entirely up the states to decide who exactly were "the people" that would be voting.  As a result only about 20% to 25% of the people were allowed to vote but due to various laws and regulations in the states, the actually number voting was considering less.   Thus the privileged few selected the nations leadership and would for many years
> 
> The end of control by the aristocrats came with the election of Jackson.  For the first time non-properly owners were allowed to vote. This is considered by most historians as beginning of the age of the common man where control of government and much of business began shifting away from the aristocracy to the the self-made man.


You can write a thousand words and not change the fact that the  American people owe everything we have to the Founders

The evidence of their foresight - the Constitution - has stood the test of time


----------



## Flopper

Mac-7 said:


> You can write a thousand words and not change the fact that the  American people owe everything we have to the Founders
> 
> The evidence of their foresight - the Constitution - has stood the test of time


I wouldn't say we owed them everything but I do believe they did a good job considering the times they lived in where slavery was acceptable, stealing land and lives of native Americans wasn't a crime, and women's right were in reality defined by the states not the constitution. It would be 130 before all Americans enjoyed the rights of the founders.  

It was the founders who laid the foundation for American but it was the people that followed that built America.


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> I wouldn't say we owed them everything but I do believe they did a good job considering the times they lived in where slavery was acceptable, stealing land and lives of native Americans wasn't a crime, and women's right were in reality defined by the states not the constitution. It would be 130 before all Americans enjoyed the rights of the founders.
> 
> It was the founders who laid the foundation for American but it was the people that followed that built America.




Your focus on teh negative is not helpful nor healthy.


----------



## Flopper

Correll said:


> Your focus on teh negative is not helpful nor healthy.


I think not.  We need to understand that the founders were mere mortals.  They had no crystal to the future and they were certainly effected by an environment that no longer exists today   Most of the constitution is certain relevant today but there are places where clarification is needed and changes that reflect American today.   Here are few:

*1. I’d like to see Section 1, Article 2  changed to read, “No person except a citizen of the United States shall be eligible for the office of President.”  * 

Think of all the remarkable Americans who have held high public office but have been constitutionally barred from seeking the presidency because they lacked a a parent who was   “natural born citizen”

In short, the natural born phrase is unnecessary because of the steps necessary to become a citizens and also, time has shown that simply being a natural born citizen does not in anyway imply loyalty.  This phrase has denied America of many fine well qualified leaders.

*2. The balance of power between the states and federal government has shifted to far away from the states. 
If I were able to amend the Constitution by a wave of a wand, I'd try to find some way to make the 10th Amendment more effective.*

The rights of states have gradually been so eroded that it's creating a congestion of taxes and regulations and paper work. I would like to have a 10th Amendment on steroids – which would somehow cause our country and our jurisprudence to remember our federal structure, and realize that the central government is limited and that powers are reserved to the states.

*3*. *A GUARANTEE FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE 
Americans often talk about their “right” to vote. The reality is noted in cases like Bush v. Gore – that is; no affirmative federal right to vote exists. Instead, courts often defer to state-based voting laws and administration. Although Americans vote for one president, one U.S. representative, and usually one U.S. senator, every one of the greater than 3,000 counties in the United States can administer federal elections in a unique (and often inefficient) way.

4*. *BALANCE THE BUDGET
I know, just about everyone says its imposable and it may be, but this is the direction we should be going even it takes 100 years. I think all sides really know we should be doing this and I'm including democrats.  A nation simply can not continue to spend more and more each year that it takes in.

5.* *NO LIFETIME JOBS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The creators of the court, which is not in constitution, ordained that justices would serve for life to make them independent of politics.  I think we should replace it with a long, nonrenewable term of no more than 20 years. Furthermore, I believe the Chief Justice should not hold this position for life, but for a four-year term that would be renewable.  *

This reform would reduce the intensity of debate on court nominations because the stakes wouldn’t be so high; it would reduce pressure to appoint young judges who will spend the maximum amount of time on the court; it would reduce pressure on federal judges to avoid retirement lest a member of the opposite party appoint their replacement; and it would bring fresh blood and thinking into the judicial system.

*6. MAKE PUBLIC SERVICE MANDATORY*
I'd propose a Universal National Service amendment – a constitutional requirement that all able-bodied Americans ages 18 to 26 devote at least two years to the service of their nation. They could select a service activity from among a wide variety of U.S. military branches, civilian government (national, state, and local), and qualifying non-profit options.  Everyone should contribute something of themselves, not just taxes, to the nation that has long been a beacon of hope and the envy of the world. 

*7*. *PUBLIC FINANCING FOR CAMPAIGNS
To get elected and to stay elected, politicians now have to spend much of their time, nearly half raising money and, thereby, becoming beholden to donors. The current system is, by its very nature, corrupt and those who campaign are almost inescapably corrupted.*

The amendment should authorize Congress to regulate and finance primary and general elections for the presidency, the House, and the Senate. It should require that all private contributors be listed by name within a matter of days. The wording should allow direct funding for campaigns, public funds to match private contributions, caps on total campaign spending, bars on campaign spending by outside groups.


*








						9 Changes to the Constitution – How Would You Change It?
					

How would you change the Constitution, if you could? The Fiscal Times reached out to a number of experts for their insight and input. The results might surprise you.




					www.thefiscaltimes.com
				



*


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> I think not.  We need to understand that the founders were mere mortals.  They had no crystal to the future and they were certainly effected by an environment that no longer exists today   Most of the constitution is certain relevant today but there are places where clarification is needed and changes that reflect American today.   Here are few:
> ....




You raise two broad categories of point(s) which I will address separately.


Our current trend in society is not to think of them as perfect, but to deconstruct our civilization to nothing. We are not suffering from excess pride, but so mired in doubt and confusion that assholes can kneel during the Nation Anthem and people pretend it is patriotic. 

Hell, the FLYING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG, has been declared "problematic" and/or "wacist" by many, and the many that seem to be driving our direction. 


I fully expect in my life time, and sooner rather than later, that the Founding Fathers will get the same treatment that the Confederates are getting now, where we will be in a situation where the next and all following generations will not be taught that they were "mortal", but that they were utter fiends, and anything and everything they did, needs to be "canceled".


----------



## westwall

dblack said:


> The problem is Facebook is neither a monopoly, nor a government entity. If you don't like the way they play, don't play with them. That's pretty easy. You can dbefore?




Government enters into an agreement with fascistbook to censor opposing viewpoints.  

Major media ONLY quotes fascistbook in their news stories.

That is government directed propaganda comrade.  Doesn't matter if you want to play or not, they are now the only game in town.


----------



## dblack

westwall said:


> Government enters into an agreement with fascistbook to censor opposing viewpoints.


As long as it's a voluntary arrangement, that's their right.



westwall said:


> Major media ONLY quotes fascistbook in their news stories.


That's a silly claim. It's not true.



westwall said:


> That is government directed propaganda comrade.  Doesn't matter if you want to play or not, they are now the only game in town.


They're really not the only game in town. Not sure how you got that idea.

Regardless what's your solution (that doesn't involve even more government mandates and regulations)?


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> I think not.  We need to understand that the founders were mere mortals.  They had no crystal to the future and they were certainly effected by an environment that no longer exists today   Most of the constitution is certain relevant today but there are places where clarification is needed and changes that reflect American today.   Here are few:
> 
> *1. I’d like to see Section 1, Article 2  changed to read, “No person except a citizen of the United States shall be eligible for the office of President.”  *
> 
> Think of all the remarkable Americans who have held high public office but have been constitutionally barred from seeking the presidency because they lacked a a parent who was   “natural born citizen”
> 
> In short, the natural born phrase is unnecessary because of the steps necessary to become a citizens and also, time has shown that simply being a natural born citizen does not in anyway imply loyalty.  This phrase has denied America of many fine well qualified leaders.



The left has been for some time now, CONSTANTLY using language that strongly implies, that ANY limitation on foreigners having full access to all the rights of citizens, is "not inclusive" or "Wacist" and thus taboo. 

This paradigm is killing this country and needs fought against at every turn.  


NO.




Flopper said:


> *2. The balance of power between the states and federal government has shifted to far away from the states.
> If I were able to amend the Constitution by a wave of a wand, I'd try to find some way to make the 10th Amendment more effective.*
> 
> The rights of states have gradually been so eroded that it's creating a congestion of taxes and regulations and paper work. I would like to have a 10th Amendment on steroids – which would somehow cause our country and our jurisprudence to remember our federal structure, and realize that the central government is limited and that powers are reserved to the states.



I would support that. Consider bundling it with a removal of the 17th amendment. That would give a ton of power back to the states. 




Flopper said:


> *3*. *A GUARANTEE FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE
> Americans often talk about their “right” to vote. The reality is noted in cases like Bush v. Gore – that is; no affirmative federal right to vote exists. Instead, courts often defer to state-based voting laws and administration. Although Americans vote for one president, one U.S. representative, and usually one U.S. senator, every one of the greater than 3,000 counties in the United States can administer federal elections in a unique (and often inefficient) way.*



I have no problem with denying the vote to criminal felons. I look at history and I see no real benefit from the constant extending of the franchise. Most 18 year olds are morons. Their input is mostly nothing but giving Hollywood and their teachers extra votes. 





Flopper said:


> *4*. *BALANCE THE BUDGET
> I know, just about everyone says its imposable and it may be, but this is the direction we should be going even it takes 100 years. I think all sides really know we should be doing this and I'm including democrats.  A nation simply can not continue to spend more and more each year that it takes in.*



 A line item veto, maybe back in the 70s, would have given the President more power and maybe helped with the debt. 

Today? I think it is too late. Resolving this issue, will take a reckoning, on a scale of a major war. At best. And it won't be a controlled landing. 




Flopper said:


> *5.* *NO LIFETIME JOBS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
> The creators of the court, which is not in constitution, ordained that justices would serve for life to make them independent of politics.  I think we should replace it with a long, nonrenewable term of no more than 20 years. Furthermore, I believe the Chief Justice should not hold this position for life, but for a four-year term that would be renewable.  *
> 
> This reform would reduce the intensity of debate on court nominations because the stakes wouldn’t be so high; it would reduce pressure to appoint young judges who will spend the maximum amount of time on the court; it would reduce pressure on federal judges to avoid retirement lest a member of the opposite party appoint their replacement; and it would bring fresh blood and thinking into the judicial system.



You're trying for a work around to avoid dealing with the problem that the Political Class is not doing it's job. No system can make up for the fact that people in it, don't believe in the system or care about their responsibilities. 

No.




Flopper said:


> *6. MAKE PUBLIC SERVICE MANDATORY*
> I'd propose a Universal National Service amendment – a constitutional requirement that all able-bodied Americans ages 18 to 26 devote at least two years to the service of their nation. They could select a service activity from among a wide variety of U.S. military branches, civilian government (national, state, and local), and qualifying non-profit options.  Everyone should contribute something of themselves, not just taxes, to the nation that has long been a beacon of hope and the envy of the world.



Fuck no. One of the big problems of our democracy, that is TOO democratic, is that politicians buy votes with public funds. As our spending has EXCEEDED our ability to pay, this is the cause of the deficit and debt. Letting them extract forced labor from the people will just give them another "revenue" stream to use to buy votes. 

I see a real danger of a us moving to a two tier society with the lower class... quite oppressed and enslaved by debt.

This would just hit the turbo to that, like mach 12. 






Flopper said:


> *7*. *PUBLIC FINANCING FOR CAMPAIGNS
> To get elected and to stay elected, politicians now have to spend much of their time, nearly half raising money and, thereby, becoming beholden to donors. The current system is, by its very nature, corrupt and those who campaign are almost inescapably corrupted.*
> 
> The amendment should authorize Congress to regulate and finance primary and general elections for the presidency, the House, and the Senate. It should require that all private contributors be listed by name within a matter of days. The wording should allow direct funding for campaigns, public funds to match private contributions, caps on total campaign spending, bars on campaign spending by outside groups.



Too late. The system and the people in it are too corrupt to trust with the money to do this. They would use this to keep out real change. Trump would NEVER have gotten funding, for one example.  Hell, SANDERS might have been denied. 



Flopper said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 Changes to the Constitution – How Would You Change It?
> 
> 
> How would you change the Constitution, if you could? The Fiscal Times reached out to a number of experts for their insight and input. The results might surprise you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thefiscaltimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


----------



## westwall

dblack said:


> As long as it's a voluntary arrangement, that's their right.
> 
> 
> That's a silly claim. It's not true.
> 
> 
> They're really not the only game in town. Not sure how you got that idea.
> 
> Regardless what's your solution (that doesn't involve even more government mandates and regulations)?





No, it isn't.   Government entering into agreements with private companies to control information is an outright violation of the COTUS, and is fascism personified.


----------



## dblack

westwall said:


> No, it isn't.   Government entering into agreements with private companies to control information is an outright violation of the COTUS, and is fascism personified.


Nah. It's just not. It might be reason to bail on FB, if you're still on there. But as long as there's nothing forcing them to comply, it's not unconstitutional.


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​



In a truly free society, the only limit to freedom of speech should be at that point where your speech begins to seriously impact or impose upon the liberties of others.  For instance, one shouldn't be free to spread lies about another, that is slander.

Conversely, freedom of the Press should extend to being free to investigate and report on all that government does, but that freedom too should be limited to the facts and accuracy----  for instance, the Press shouldn't be free to make up stories or lie about events or people, and should be clear to the reader of what they truly KNOW and what is hearsay or opinion, and there should be stiff penalties for printing or spreading blatant misinformation to discourage such a thing.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


Would you be ok with appointing Donald Trump the chief regulator of speech: what's free and what isn't?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

dblack said:


> Nah. It's just not. It might be reason to bail on FB, if you're still on there. But as long as there's nothing forcing them to comply, it's not unconstitutional.


If the government is involved, it's unconstitutional.


----------



## dblack

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Would you be ok with appointing Donald Trump the chief regulator of speech: what's free and what isn't?


That's what both sides are asking for.


----------



## dblack

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If the government is involved, it's unconstitutional.


Do you have any reason for saying that? Any opinion from a court, or a Constitutional expert? My understanding is that it's no different than the government recommending that everyone get vaccinated. They're asking Facebook to help beat back all the propaganda, foreign and domestic, that is undermining our efforts to fight the pandemic. Facebook et. al. are under no obligation to comply. If the government turns around and tries to slap regulations on them, or changes the laws to punish them for not complying, _that_ would be unconstitutional. But the ask is not.


----------



## Flopper

Correll said:


> The left has been for some time now, CONSTANTLY using language that strongly implies, that ANY limitation on foreigners having full access to all the rights of citizens, is "not inclusive" or "Wacist" and thus taboo.
> 
> This paradigm is killing this country and needs fought against at every turn.
> 
> 
> NO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would support that. Consider bundling it with a removal of the 17th amendment. That would give a ton of power back to the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with denying the vote to criminal felons. I look at history and I see no real benefit from the constant extending of the franchise. Most 18 year olds are morons. Their input is mostly nothing but giving Hollywood and their teachers extra votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A line item veto, maybe back in the 70s, would have given the President more power and maybe helped with the debt.
> 
> Today? I think it is too late. Resolving this issue, will take a reckoning, on a scale of a major war. At best. And it won't be a controlled landing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying for a work around to avoid dealing with the problem that the Political Class is not doing it's job. No system can make up for the fact that people in it, don't believe in the system or care about their responsibilities.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck no. One of the big problems of our democracy, that is TOO democratic, is that politicians buy votes with public funds. As our spending has EXCEEDED our ability to pay, this is the cause of the deficit and debt. Letting them extract forced labor from the people will just give them another "revenue" stream to use to buy votes.
> 
> I see a real danger of a us moving to a two tier society with the lower class... quite oppressed and enslaved by debt.
> 
> This would just hit the turbo to that, like mach 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too late. The system and the people in it are too corrupt to trust with the money to do this. They would use this to keep out real change. Trump would NEVER have gotten funding, for one example.  Hell, SANDERS might have been denied.


1.  I don't see why a US citizen born in Atlanta, Dallas, New York or Los Angles should be more qualified to run for president than a US Citizen born born in Tokyo, London, Rome, or  Sydney. The merits of the candidate should be determine by the people, not a clause in the constitution that is based erroneous on the belief that a US citizen born abroad will be less capable or less loyal that a US citizen born in the US.

People who legally immigrated to the US typically face many obstacles that native born American will never face such as: separation from friends, family, work and their home, getting the money needed to relocate, getting new employment and housing, all while learning a new language and adapting to a new culture, and dealing with prejudice and often hatred.  Immigrants earn the right to call themselves Americans.  Those born in the US do nothing.  

2. I don't see how removing the 17th amendment would give more power to the states.  Removing the amendment transfers the power to elect Senators from the people to the legislature of a state which means that a senate seat would become a political pawn in the legislature where party loyalty and tenure far out weight qualifications.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

dblack said:


> Do you have any reason for saying that? Any opinion from a court, or a Constitutional expert? My understanding is that it's no different than the government recommending that everyone get vaccinated. They're asking Facebook to help beat back all the propaganda, foreign and domestic, that is undermining our efforts to fight the pandemic. Facebook et. al. are under no obligation to comply. If the government turns around and tries to slap regulations on them, or changes the laws to punish them for not complying, _that_ would be unconstitutional. But the ask is not.


Typically, the people who want the government to limit free speech are Leftists and they would never stand for Trump to be the chief decider of those limits.  Just like I would never stand for Pelosi to fill that roll.  The point being: who gets to regulate speech?


----------



## dblack

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Typically, the people who want the government to limit free speech are Leftists and they would never stand for Trump to be the chief decider of those limits.  Just like I would never stand for Pelosi to fill that roll.  The point being: who gets to regulate speech?


That doesn't answer my question. But I'll answer yours: not government.


----------



## EvMetro

dblack said:


> They're asking Facebook to help


In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

dblack said:


> That doesn't answer my question. But I'll answer yours: not government.


Who, then?


----------



## dblack

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Who, then?


Anyone but government.


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> 1.  I don't see why a US citizen born in Atlanta, Dallas, New York or Los Angles should be more qualified to run for president than a US Citizen born born in Tokyo, London, Rome, or  Sydney. The merits of the candidate should be determine by the people, not a clause in the constitution that is based erroneous on the belief that a US citizen born abroad will be less capable or less loyal that a US citizen born in the US.
> 
> People who legally immigrated to the US typically face many obstacles that native born American will never face such as: separation from friends, family, work and their home, getting the money needed to relocate, getting new employment and housing, all while learning a new language and adapting to a new culture, and dealing with prejudice and often hatred.  Immigrants earn the right to call themselves Americans.  Those born in the US do nothing.
> 
> 2. I don't see how removing the 17th amendment would give more power to the states.  Removing the amendment transfers the power to elect Senators from the people to the legislature of a state which means that a senate seat would become a political pawn in the legislature where party loyalty and tenure far out weight qualifications.




1. Too much immigration is the problem, not giving even more  to immigrants. Arhnold is not worth the trouble. 

2. It makes Senators beholding to the States more.


----------



## Flopper

Correll said:


> 1. Too much immigration is the problem, not giving even more  to immigrants. Arnold is not worth the trouble.
> 
> 2. It makes Senators beholding to the States more.


1.  The issue is not the number of immigrants to be allowed into the country.  It's whether voters will be allowed to decide if a non-native born citizen is qualified to be president.

2. It makes Senators beholding to the politicians in legislature.


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> 1.  The issue is not the number of immigrants to be allowed into the country.  It's whether voters will be allowed to decide if a non-native born citizen is qualified to be president.
> 
> 2. It makes Senators beholding to the politicians in legislature.




1. The issue is the number of immigrants to be allowed into the country. Pushing to give them MORE, instead of pushing to get a reasonable number of them, is a bad idea. 


2. The State legislatures, and state politicians.


----------



## my2¢

I believe the current limits on free speech are fine or in other words, I don't want the limits to be extended beyond what they are today.


----------



## Flopper

my2¢ said:


> I believe the current limits on free speech are fine or in other words, I don't want the limits to be extended beyond what they are today.


Exactly what are those limits


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> Exactly what are those limits



There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech.
The fact you can be sued or charge for harm caused by libel, slander, inciting violence, bearing false witness, etc., is all AFTER the fact.
The principle is called "prior restraint" and it is illegal.
You can never legally censor anything from adults, and can only sue or prosecute for damages later.

Here is one of the more famous examples:
{...
The most famous prior restraint case is* New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713* (1971). The Nixon Administration sought to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing stories from leaked classified documents called the Pentagon Papers, a Department of Defense study of U.S. decision-making before and during the conflict in Vietnam.
...}

And this included private services like Twitter and FaceBook, that are bound by FCC regulations to not discriminate against the political ideas of anyone, regardless if they may be wrong or even harmful.
People harmed can sue after the fact, but legally nothing can ever be censored.
Only a judge can legally censor anything.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> And this included private services like Twitter and FaceBook, that are bound by FCC regulations to not discriminate against the political ideas of anyone, regardless if they may be wrong or even harmful.


This is a frequent claim lately, but it's not been established. In any case, if it is established, it would be a gross overreach by the FCC.

This anti-discrimination shit is, and always had been, an abuse of state power. And it's the driving force, the twisted logic, behind so many other ill-conceived attempts to control people. The campaign by Trumpsters, and other liberals, to use it to justify state control of social media is only the latest example.


----------



## HenryBHough

You're free to say anything you like so long as you accept that being "ffensive" to any liberal means you are subject ot assault; your family to threatening; your home to arson.  Just a few minor inconveniences.....

Oh, to  complain is offensive and probably racist.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech.
> The fact you can be sued or charge for harm caused by libel, slander, inciting violence, bearing false witness, etc., is all AFTER the fact.
> The principle is called "prior restraint" and it is illegal.
> You can never legally censor anything from adults, and can only sue or prosecute for damages later.
> 
> Here is one of the more famous examples:
> {...
> The most famous prior restraint case is* New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713* (1971). The Nixon Administration sought to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing stories from leaked classified documents called the Pentagon Papers, a Department of Defense study of U.S. decision-making before and during the conflict in Vietnam.
> ...}
> 
> And this included private services like Twitter and FaceBook, that are bound by FCC regulations to not discriminate against the political ideas of anyone, regardless if they may be wrong or even harmful.
> People harmed can sue after the fact, but legally nothing can ever be censored.
> Only a judge can legally censor anything.


You should go back and read the 1st amendment.
 "*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"*

So in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, congress could not pass a law that viliorated your right to freedom speech.   It addressed only the actions of congress.  In the coming years it became clear that the founders had more in mind than just protecting the people from congress.  As a result federal court rulings, federal laws, state constitutions and state laws, extended the protection to  actions of federal, state, and local, government.

 Generally, there is no right to free speech in private workplaces.  In addition, there are a number of other limitations such as speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree.  Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> This is a frequent claim lately, but it's not been established. In any case, if it is established, it would be a gross overreach by the FCC.
> 
> This anti-discrimination shit is, and always had been, an abuse of state power. And it's the driving force, the twisted logic, behind so many other ill-conceived attempts to control people. The campaign by Trumpsters, and other liberals, to use it to justify state control of social media is only the latest example.



I can't make sense of what you mean?
What I am saying is there are laws against discrimination, including against censorship of political ideas you do not agree with.
So then the FCC regulations prevent censorship on any media it has authority over, such as the internet and all its service providers.
So then Twitter and Facebook can not legally censor anything.
If someone dislikes, disagrees with, or thinks something is harmful, then the only legal recourse is to prosecute or sue AFTER the fact.
The prior restraint of censorship is entirely and completely illegal.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> You should go back and read the 1st amendment.
> "*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"*
> 
> So in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, congress could not pass a law that viliorated your right to freedom speech.   It addressed only the actions of congress.  In the coming years it became clear that the founders had more in mind than just protecting the people from congress.  As a result federal court rulings, federal laws, state constitutions and state laws, extended the protection to  actions of federal, state, and local, government.
> 
> Generally, there is no right to free speech in private workplaces.  In addition, there are a number of other limitations such as speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
> 
> So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree.  Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.



ORIGINALLY the Bill of Rights only limited or applied to restrictions on the federal government.
But not after the 14th amendment.
After that, the Bill of Rights and other things are used in order to discover inherent individual rights by the shadow they cast on the Bill of Rights.  Known as the Penumbra Effect.
{...
In United States constitutional law, the *penumbra* includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.[2] These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.[3] Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.[4]
...}
Also the principle of Incorporation applies.
{...
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation applies both substantively and procedurally. Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government and to federal court cases. States and state courts could choose to adopt similar laws, but were under no obligation to do so. 

After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court favored a process called “selective incorporation.” Under selective incorporation, the Supreme Court would incorporate certain parts of certain amendments, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once. 
...}
The general idea is that the basis for law really is the abstraction of what historically has been the accepted concept of individual rights, and is not the arbitrary edicts found in legislation


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree. Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.



I did not say there are no limits on free speech.
What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.
So you must let them speak, even if what they say is illegal.
You can then only prosecute or sue later, after then have spoken.
It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.
That is not up to you to decide, and only a judge can.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> That's what both sides are asking for.



The executive is never supposed to decide anything or ever censor,
That is supposed to be entirely and completely up to the courts to decide after the fact,


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> This is a frequent claim lately, but it's not been established. In any case, if it is established, it would be a gross overreach by the FCC.
> 
> This anti-discrimination shit is, and always had been, an abuse of state power. And it's the driving force, the twisted logic, behind so many other ill-conceived attempts to control people. The campaign by Trumpsters, and other liberals, to use it to justify state control of social media is only the latest example.



Any and all regulation of the internet can't be an over reach by the FCC, because that is exactly what the FCC is supposed to do.
People like FaceBook and Twitter who then use the federal internet to make money, have to abide by the existing FCC rules, which includes NO censorship or discrimination.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> I can't make sense of what you mean?
> What I am saying is there are laws against discrimination, including against censorship of political ideas you do not agree with.


I've seen no cites of laws like that that apply to social. If there such, they're a violation of free speech.


Rigby5 said:


> So then the FCC regulations prevent censorship on any media it has authority over, such as the internet and all its service providers.


Yes. It's not been legally established that social media sites are "service provider". Even if it is, such power should never reside with government


Rigby5 said:


> So then Twitter and Facebook can not legally censor anything.


I don't believe that's been established, and if it has it's an abuse of government.


Rigby5 said:


> If someone dislikes, disagrees with, or thinks something is harmful, then the only legal recourse is to prosecute or sue AFTER the fact.
> The prior restraint of censorship is entirely and completely illegal.


Nope. It's not. Prior restraint applies to government not website and restauarants.


----------



## HenryBHough

Flopper said:


> You should go back and read the 1st amendment.
> "*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"*
> 
> So in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, congress could not pass a law that viliorated your right to freedom speech.   It addressed only the actions of congress.  In the coming years it became clear that the founders had more in mind than just protecting the people from congress.  As a result federal court rulings, federal laws, state constitutions and state laws, extended the protection to  actions of federal, state, and local, government.
> 
> Generally, there is no right to free speech in private workplaces.  In addition, there are a number of other limitations such as speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
> 
> So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree.  Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.


Ah, CONGRESS can't make the laws as described.

In Lexicon Liberal, however, those powers are reserved to Dictator Xiden and his executive-ordering ilk.,

Got it!


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> I've seen no cites of laws like that that apply to social. If there such, they're a violation of free speech.
> 
> Yes. It's not been legally established that social media sites are "service provider". Even if it is, such power should never reside with government
> 
> 
> I don't believe that's been established, and if it has it's an abuse of government.
> 
> Nope. It's not. Prior restraint applies to government not website and restauarants.



Wrong.
Prior restraint applies to anyone.
If you want to take out a ad in a newspaper where you intend to slander your spouse with untrue claims of infidelity, it is illegal for the paper to censor and not take your money and print the ad.
The only legal procedure is for service providers like a newspaper to not censor, and then for those harmed to later sue the one who took out the ad.
Governments only obtain any authority by borrowing the delegated authority from individuals to protect their own inherent rights.
So then there can't be any difference between governments and any individuals.
What is harmful is for a judge to decide, not some commercial organization with its own profit motivated agenda.


----------



## Concerned American

Flopper said:


> the second which is declaration of fact.


Which, according to USMB rules, requires an accompanying link to justify--as news outlets traditionally did until the era of FAKE NEWS.  Libel and Slander laws need to be beefed up and enforced.  Also equal time laws need to be brought back.


----------



## Rigby5

HenryBHough said:


> Ah, CONGRESS can't make the laws as described.
> 
> In Lexicon Liberal, however, those powers are reserved to Dictator Xiden and his executive-ordering ilk.,
> 
> Got it!



And after the 14th amendment and the principles of incorporation and penumbra, no one can violate those principle of individual rights.
The Bill of Right used to just restrain government, but after the 14th amendment, no one can violate those individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.


Wronger.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Wronger.



If you are a service provider, like with a monopoly on some media like the internet, you can not legally censor.
To do so would be to act as judge, jury and executioner of ideas.
And that can never be allowed.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> If you are a service provider, like with a monopoly on some media like the internet, you can not legally censor.


Yes, I know. All the Trumpsters have been insisting that FB, Twitter, etc are "service providers" or "monopolies" or any other excuse that pops into their heads. But they're not. They're just websites.


Rigby5 said:


> To do so would be to act as judge, jury and executioner of ideas.


No, it wouldn't.


Rigby5 said:


> And that can never be allowed.


Yes, it can.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

westwall said:


> Government entering into agreements with private companies to control information is an outright violation of the COTUS, and is fascism personified.


This is a lie – as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Government is not ‘controlling’ information with private social media.

In fact, advocacy through government speech is perfectly Constitutional.









						the-government-speech-doctrine
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Who, then?


Private citizens in the context of private society – what you conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute


Correct.

Rights are neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – they’re subject to regulation and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.


Wrong.

The courts have consistently held that prior restraint is justified and lawful provided it’s content-neutral – such as prohibiting the press from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.


Also wrong.

Speech that advocates for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protections.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Private citizens in the context of private society – what you conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture.’


Sure hate agreeing with you C.

The funny thing is how libs and cons have switched sides on this issue (and many others). All because Twitter was mean to the Donald.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> I did not say there are no limits on free speech.
> What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.
> So you must let them speak, even if what they say is illegal.
> You can then only prosecute or sue later, after then have spoken.
> It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.
> That is not up to you to decide, and only a judge can.





Rigby5 said:


> I did not say there are no limits on free speech.
> What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.
> So you must let them speak, even if what they say is illegal.
> You can then only prosecute or sue later, after then have spoken.
> It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.
> That is not up to you to decide, and only a judge can.


Sorry, I was addressing Rigby5.
I agree with your statements on prior restraint.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> Any and all regulation of the internet can't be an over reach by the FCC, because that is exactly what the FCC is supposed to do.
> People like FaceBook and Twitter who then use the federal internet to make money, have to abide by the existing FCC rules, which includes NO censorship or discrimination.


The FCC policies and regulation in regard to media, (TV, Radio, Cable) seem to be much different than the Internet.   I can't find much of anything about content control on the internet  

The social media companies are between a rock and a hard place.  Whichever course they choose, they lose.  The public demands that social media  control content to stop the flow of misinformation and lies that destroy reputations of individuals and businesses, and sway elections and also venomous hate speech that provokes violence.  However Americans also demand social media stand firm in support of freedom of speech.  We can't have both ways.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie – as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.
> 
> Government is not ‘controlling’ information with private social media.
> 
> In fact, advocacy through government speech is perfectly Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the-government-speech-doctrine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu





Bullshit.  The xiden admin is conspiring with fascistbook to control information.   The fact that you approve is not surprising.   You ARE a fascist through and through.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Sure hate agreeing with you C.
> 
> The funny thing is how libs and cons have switched sides on this issue (and many others). All because Twitter was mean to the Donald.


You're thinking in terms of stereotypes created by both conservatives and liberal media.  Very few people actually support all the issues or philosophies in the stereotypes. 
There are liberals who hold some conservative view such as:
being a fiscal conservative
anti-abortion
own guns
oppose tax increases
strong supporters of law and order
oppose legalizing drugs

Just as there are conservatives who
oppose increases in military spending
supporting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
support a national minimum wage
not of the Christian faith
supports the equal rights amendment
supports universal healthcare

Of about a dozen liberals and conservative I know personally, there are only one or two who completely fit the liberal or conservative stereotype. So when you say switching sides, you may be referring to someone who does not completely fit ether stereotype which few people do.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Yes, I know. All the Trumpsters have been insisting that FB, Twitter, etc are "service providers" or "monopolies" or any other excuse that pops into their heads. But they're not. They're just websites.
> 
> No, it wouldn't.
> 
> Yes, it can.



Wrong.
Once you allow censorship, then all the wealthy elite have to do is buy or destroy all the alterative media competition, and they can control every thing every one sees or hears.
That guarantees a dictatorship.

Didn't the lies about Iraqi WMD teach you anything?
We already have a monopoly on information enough as it is.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The courts have consistently held that prior restraint is justified and lawful provided it’s content-neutral – such as prohibiting the press from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.



That is entirely different in that disclosing troop movements violates security laws.
A political opinion about something like election fraud or the epidemic, does not.
And then censorship is totally and completely illegal unless ruled by a judge.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also wrong.
> 
> Speech that advocates for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protections.



I never said that speech inciting violence was protected.
The point is that it is up to a court to decide if the speech was illegal or not, and not some corporation with its own agenda.
The principle of no prior restraint means you let the speech through, but only prosecute or sure illegal and harmful speech.
You do not let arbitrary standards be forced on us to prevent us from getting all the information and side to any political question.
Censorship of any kind is always wrong.

{... 
Censorship is certainly not the answer to controversial material and is inconsistent with our most basic constitutional values. Kimberle Williams Crenshaw
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{... 
The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. George Bernard Shaw
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{...
Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever. Noam Chomsky
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{..
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. George Bernard Shaw
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{...
The prime goal of censorship is to promote ignorance, whether it is done via lying and bowdlerized school texts or by attacking individual books. Felice Picano
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> The FCC policies and regulation in regard to media, (TV, Radio, Cable) seem to be much different than the Internet.   I can't find much of anything about content control on the internet
> 
> The social media companies are between a rock and a hard place.  Whichever course they choose, they lose.  The public demands that social media  control content to stop the flow of misinformation and lies that destroy reputations of individuals and businesses, and sway elections and also venomous hate speech that provokes violence.  However Americans also demand social media stand firm in support of freedom of speech.  We can't have both ways.



I believe the FCC over regulated TV, but that is different because it is broadcast to all age groups.
The internet can easily filter by age, membership, etc.
The public should NOT be demanding contend control, but recourse.
The media service providers should have a means by which people are aided in being able to sue when there are harmful slander and libel.
The problem is that the FCC never made means of pursuing internet harm accessible.
But that can be fixed, and arbitrary censorship instead is not the answer.
For example, revenge porn.
Obviously that is harmful and should be prosecuted or grounds for a law suit, but the FCC has failed to make legal recourse accessible.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Private citizens in the context of private society – what you conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture.’



Is that due process of the law?  Sounds like a civil rights violation.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also wrong.
> 
> Speech that advocates for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protections.


Yet, you defend the cancel culture.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation.


Short of national security issues, the state does not get to decide what information is "dangerous".
You may  think it is a good idea now, but in the future, you will likely disagree.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.


Nope, you're wrong.


Rigby5 said:


> Once you allow censorship, then all the wealthy elite have to do is buy or destroy all the alterative media competition, and they can control every thing every one sees or hears.
> That guarantees a dictatorship.
> 
> Didn't the lies about Iraqi WMD teach you anything?
> We already have a monopoly on information enough as it is.


You want to replace private "censorship" with state control of the media. Like they do in China. No thanks.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> You're thinking in terms of stereotypes created by both conservatives and liberal media.


No, I'm thinking in terms of ideology and values.


Flopper said:


> Very few people actually support all the issues or philosophies in the stereotypes.


That's not the issue. I'm not talking about ideological purity. I'm just asking for some consistency. What I see, from both major parties, is complete hypocrisy. "It's different when we do it", could be the motto for either party. They flip and flop with the wind, grasping at whichever arguments benefit their party in the moment (nation be damned). Even if it's a complete reversal of what they were arguing three months ago regarding another issue.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

M14 Shooter said:


> Short of national security issues, the state does not get to decide what information is "dangerous".
> You may  think it is a good idea now, but in the future, you will likely disagree.


The Leftists were all about free speech back when Russia collusion was a thing.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Private citizens in the context of private society – what you conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture.’



Wrong.
It is illegal censorship when tenured professors are fired over political beliefs.
It is illegal to fire people over sexual allegations that were never proven in court.
It is illegal to fire people over old racist jokes or blackface.
It is illegal to fire people who refuse an vaccine not FDA approved.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> The FCC policies and regulation in regard to media, (TV, Radio, Cable) seem to be much different than the Internet.   I can't find much of anything about content control on the internet
> 
> The social media companies are between a rock and a hard place.  Whichever course they choose, they lose.  The public demands that social media  control content to stop the flow of misinformation and lies that destroy reputations of individuals and businesses, and sway elections and also venomous hate speech that provokes violence.  However Americans also demand social media stand firm in support of freedom of speech.  We can't have both ways.



Correct.
The FCC is not protecting rights on the internet.
So then providers are doing it all themselves, which is the wrong way for it to be done.
There need to be public court actions, not private censorship.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also wrong.
> 
> Speech that advocates for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protections.



Wrong.
It is only an opinion as to whether or not speech is harmful to others, until after a court ruling.
All speech is entitled to 1st amendment protection until a court has ruled otherwise.
The exception would only be something that violated national security laws.

Advocating imminent lawlessness can be perfectly legal, such as advocating civil disobedience over things like the Vietnam war, civil rights, Black Lives Matter, the invasion of Iraq, the War on Drugs, or hundreds of other felonies committed by government.

The legislative and executive bodies are not law and can not arbitrarily impose their beliefs on citizens.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> It is illegal censorship when tenured professors are fired over political beliefs.
> It is illegal to fire people over sexual allegations that were never proven in court.
> It is illegal to fire people over old racist jokes or blackface.
> It is illegal to fire people who refuse an vaccine not FDA approved.


Maybe, in your world, it would be easier if government just issued a list of "approved" reasons for firing someone. Or maybe each employer would be assigned a state minder who would have to sign off on any hiring/firing decisions.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Maybe, in your world, it would be easier if government just issued a list of "approved" reasons for firing someone. Or maybe each employer would be assigned a state minder who would have to sign off on any hiring/firing decisions.



The way law is supposed to work is people do what they think they need to do, and then a judge decides later if they were wrong or right.
Employers can fire whom they want, but they then later may have to pay out large sums.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> The way law is supposed to work is people do what they think they need to do, and then a judge decides later if they were wrong or right.
> Employers can fire whom they want, but they then later may have to pay out large sums.


But with so many reasons for firing being banned, it seems like it would more clear if there was a government official they could ask. If not minders for each business, at least some kind of hotline or something.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> But with so many reasons for firing being banned, it seems like it would more clear if there was a government official they could ask. If not minders for each business, at least some kind of hotline or something.



But the government seems to be the worst about knowing what is legal anymore.
In the past, it had always been illegal to fire over allegations of sexual misconduct, racism, political beliefs, etc.
But apparently employers can now do whatever they want.
There are only few explicit forms of discrimination that are illegal, like over race, age, sex, and religion, and people seem to now have the mistaken believe that only these explicitly listed forms are illegal.
No one seems to know law any more.
Most lawyers mistakenly believer the Bill of Rights only applies to act by the federal government, and that has not been true for over 100 years.

Of course any smart employer would just not say why they are firing.
They don't have to, and you can't sue over what has not been confirmed.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> But the government seems to be the worst about knowing what is legal anymore.


LOL - ayup. So many laws no one could possibly keep track. Ahh, ain't ubiquitous state regulation grand?


Rigby5 said:


> In the past, it had always been illegal to fire over allegations of sexual misconduct, racism, political beliefs, etc.
> But apparently employers can now do whatever they want.
> There are only few explicit forms of discrimination that are illegal, like over race, age, sex, and religion, and people seem to now have the mistaken believe that only these explicitly listed forms are illegal.
> No one seems to know law any more.
> Most lawyers mistakenly believer the Bill of Rights only applies to act by the federal government, and that has not been true for over 100 years.


Hey - I was being sarcastic. I think the kind of totalitarian government you're after is bonkers.



Rigby5 said:


> Of course any smart employer would just not say why they are firing.
> They don't have to, and you can't sue over what has not been confirmed.



Yes. That's actually a relatively sane response to overbearing government - lie, cheat and steal. Doesn't do much for the "moral fabric" of society, but we don't seem to really care about that.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> LOL - ayup. So many laws no one could possibly keep track. Ahh, ain't ubiquitous state regulation grand?
> 
> Hey - I was being sarcastic. I think the kind of totalitarian government you're after is bonkers.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's actually a relatively sane response to overbearing government - lie, cheat and steal. Doesn't do much for the "moral fabric" of society, but we don't seem to really care about that.



It being illegal for fire over things like political beliefs, sexual allegations, etc. is NOT overbearing government.
It is the exact opposite, in that it is about protecting individual rights.
If you do not protect individual rights through law, then it becomes easy to create an authoritarian dictatorship through economic discrimination and coercion.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> It being illegal for fire over things like political beliefs, sexual allegations, etc. is NOT overbearing government.


Yes, it is. The worst sort.


Rigby5 said:


> It is the exact opposite, in that it is about protecting individual rights.


I can't get my head wrapped around that kind of twisted world view. You seem to think a "right" is the power to force someone else to do what you want. That's just weird.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Yes, it is. The worst sort.
> 
> I can't get my head wrapped around that kind of twisted world view. You seem to think a "right" is the power to force someone else to do what you want. That's just weird.



You have it backwards.
The point is the employer does not have any need, justification, or defense of his rights, to fire others over their political opinions.
An employer who does that is just harming others out of his own desire, not rights.
Freedom is not about protecting political beliefs you like, but about protecting what you do not like.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Once you allow censorship


It’s neither government’s role nor responsibility to ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ censorship.

How the press edits its content is not within the scope of government.


----------



## Lastamender

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


No. There should be no limits.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> You have it backwards.


Nah, you do.

You're rights aren't not being violated if you get fired from a job, regardless of the reason.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s neither government’s role nor responsibility to ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ censorship.
> 
> How the press edits its content is not within the scope of government.



Wrong.
When anyone could hand out handbills or pick a spot to orate to crowds passing by, then government did not need to get involved in preventing censorship.
But now that only multi million dollar corporations can access any significant portion of the public, how private companies censor or distort the truth most certainly IS within the scope of government.

For example, the press failed to challenge the lies over WMD in Iraq, so then were complicit to murder.
The press failed to prevent slander and libel against people fired for sexual misconduct that was never proven in court.
It was illegal for social media to censor anyone or anything at all.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Nah, you do.
> 
> You're rights aren't not being violated if you get fired from a job, regardless of the reason.



Wrong.
If people are fired over their religion, then that clearly is illegal and no better than the Kristallnacht.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> all the wealthy elite have to do is buy or destroy all the alterative media competition, and they can control every thing every one sees or hears.
> That guarantees a dictatorship.


This doesn’t make any sense.

‘The wealthy’ are part of the private sector, they’re not government; a ‘dictatorship’ is a manifestation of government, the public sector – one having nothing to do with the other.

What guarantees a dictatorship is using the authority of the state to exact punitive measures against the press and private media – the Florida law enacted by Republicans to punish social media for exercising their right to freedom of association would be an example of a prelude to dictatorship; which is why that law as appropriately invalidated by the courts.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> When anyone could hand out handbills or pick a spot to orate to crowds passing by, then government did not need to get involved in preventing censorship.


Believe it or not, passing out handbills and speaking to crowds passing by is still legal! I just looked it up. Now, I supposed you'd like to make that illegal too, but far, it's still allowed.


> But now that only multi million dollar corporations can access any significant portion of the public, how private companies censor or distort the truth most certainly IS within the scope of government.


Well, that's your claim. I think state control of the media is step toward totalitarian government, and a really bad idea - so I'm hoping we can defeat you!


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> If people are fired over their religion, then that clearly is illegal and no better than the Kristallnacht.


I know it's illegal. It's a stupid law. Regardless, no one's rights are being violated if they lose their job, regardless of the reason.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This doesn’t make any sense.
> 
> ‘The wealthy’ are part of the private sector, they’re not government; a ‘dictatorship’ is a manifestation of government, the public sector – one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> What guarantees a dictatorship is using the authority of the state to exact punitive measures against the press and private media – the Florida law enacted by Republicans to punish social media for exercising their right to freedom of association would be an example of a prelude to dictatorship; which is why that law as appropriately invalidated by the courts.



Wrong.
All dictatorships are always where the private sector takes over the government.
The private sector is always the problem.
Government is just the tool or means by which they take over.
Government itself is not and never has been the problem.

Freedom of association is good, but censorship is not.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Believe it or not, passing out handbills and speaking to crowds passing by is still legal! I just looked it up. Now, I supposed you'd like to make that illegal too, but far, it's still allowed.
> 
> Well, that's your claim. I think state control of the media is step toward totalitarian government, and a really bad idea - so I'm hoping we can defeat you!



Of course handbills and soapbox oration is legal, the point is it not longer is effective.

No one suggested state control of the media.
The point is to stop anyone from controlling the media, and ensure all messages get out, even those that one disagrees with.
Only then, after the population has heard all the opinions, it the truth most likely to win out.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> I know it's illegal. It's a stupid law. Regardless, no one's rights are being violated if they lose their job, regardless of the reason.



Wrong.
Firing someone over what is not work related, obviously can harm 6 million people.
What if it is a company town and there only is one employer?


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Of course handbills and soapbox oration is legal, the point is it not longer is effective.


Nah, it's still effective. Especially for local issues. You can also create your own website, and it's dirt cheap. The fact of the matter is, it's much, much easier for you to express your opinions to large groups of people now than it ever was.



> No one suggested state control of the media.


Oh, my bad, just "regulation", that's not control  or anything. 

Point of fact - control is exactly what you're looking for. And you'll probably get your way. Republicans no longer give a shit about limited government. They're just as eager as the Democrats to get their hands on social media. Seems kind of inevitable from that perspective.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> The FCC is not protecting rights on the internet.


There are no ‘rights’ on the internet – rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or organizations, such as social media and their subscribers.

Government exacts regulatory oversite only; the content of the press and private social media are beyond the scope of government authority – government seeking to control content is un-Constitutional.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Firing someone over what is not work related, obviously can harm 6 million people.
> What if it is a company town and there only is one employer?


What right is being violated? Are you saying you have a right to force someone to provide you with job?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> It is illegal censorship when tenured professors are fired over political beliefs.
> It is illegal to fire people over sexual allegations that were never proven in court.
> It is illegal to fire people over old racist jokes or blackface.
> It is illegal to fire people who refuse an vaccine not FDA approved.


You’re still not making any sense – none of this has anything to do with the fact that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not – that’s not the role of government.

The Framers’ intent with regard to the doctrine of freedom of speech is to prohibit government from seeking punitive measures against speech the government opposes.

It was not the intent of the Framers that speech be completely devoid of limits and restrictions; it was the Framers’ intent that the people would regulate speech – not government.

If a conservative talk show host uses the n-word on the air, it would be the role and responsibility of private citizens in the context of private society to determine that speech to be inappropriate, to demand that the radio station terminate the conservative talk show host, or to boycott the show’s sponsors.

This is why conservatives are wrong about the myth/lie of ‘cancel culture’; conservatives’ wrongheaded opposition the myth/lie of ‘cancel culture’ runs contrary to the Framers’ intent of private society regulating speech.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Is that due process of the law?  Sounds like a civil rights violation.


What you and other conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture’ runs counter to the original intent of the Framers.

That conservatives are once again at odds with the Framers is of course nothing new.


----------



## dblack

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Is that due process of the law?  Sounds like a civil rights violation.


It might be. Or civil rights legislation is idiotic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> private "censorship"


‘Censorship’ or the people determining what speech is appropriate as intended by the Framers, absent unwarranted interference by government and the courts.

Comparing ‘private ‘censorship’ with government censorship is clearly a fallacy – the latter is un-Constitutional; the former is not.

Private ‘censorship’ is devoid of the authority and power of the state; government censorship is comprehensive, private ‘censorship’ is not – that a private publisher might elect to not disseminate certain information doesn’t mean there aren’t other sources where that information can be found; that wouldn’t be the case with government censorship.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Censorship’ or the people determining what speech is appropriate as intended by the Framers, absent unwarranted interference by government and the courts.
> 
> Comparing ‘private ‘censorship’ with government censorship is clearly a fallacy – the latter is un-Constitutional; the former is not.
> 
> Private ‘censorship’ is devoid of the authority and power of the state; government censorship is comprehensive, private ‘censorship’ is not – that a private publisher might elect to not disseminate certain information doesn’t mean there aren’t other sources where that information can be found; that wouldn’t be the case with government censorship.


Agreed. I sure hope all the liberals who are suddenly jazzed about the rights of private business will remember these discussions going forward. Something tells me they won't.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Once you allow censorship, then all the wealthy elite have to do is buy or destroy all the alterative media competition, and they can control every thing every one sees or hears.
> That guarantees a dictatorship.
> 
> Didn't the lies about Iraqi WMD teach you anything?
> We already have a monopoly on information enough as it is.


We allow censorship now and have for many years. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, and true threats. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.  

I can remember the Internet back in the late 80's before the world wide web (WWW) Facebook, Google, and Twitter when you could get away saying anything what ever you choose on sites such as Prodigy or CompuServe.   It was common to see threads, against  the president, other members, and just about anyone else, post after post filled with profanity and nothing else, and people offering advice of bomb building, offering stolen merchandise for sale, etc.  I really don't think anyone really wants to go back to totally free speech.


----------



## evenifigoalone

There are limits on freedom of speech: speech that incites violence. You can get in trouble for that.

Now, the government shouldn't be regulating the press (but they do anyways) and neither should they be telling people what information they can or cannot share. That said? Parties that are not involved with the government (ie, Facebook) absolutely can. Freedom of speech applies to government regulation and government regulation only.


----------



## Stann

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


The founding fathers could never imagine a scenario where people could become so gullible they would believe all these lies. People used to have common sense.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> No, I'm thinking in terms of ideology and values.
> 
> That's not the issue. I'm not talking about ideological purity. I'm just asking for some consistency. What I see, from both major parties, is complete hypocrisy. "It's different when we do it", could be the motto for either party. They flip and flop with the wind, grasping at whichever arguments benefit their party in the moment (nation be damned). Even if it's a complete reversal of what they were arguing three months ago regarding another issue.


When you say both parties, are you speaking of the actually leadership of two parties, RNC and DNC or are you speaking of comments from party members, politicians and supporters.  There are really not many democrats or republicans that will stick to the party line in every circumstance.   Also, most supporters of the two parties have certain issues that they will go against the party and their are issues in which people are on both sides and will flip flop for political reasons. If you represent a district that is evenly divided between those that favor freedom to choose vaccination and those who believe vaccinating should be required, you are likely to cater to both sides and thus go back and forth on your support for each side.  It's politics and both sides do it.


----------



## Eyepublius

*FYI for the GOP ignorant class parked here:*

*Introduction to Free Speech and First Amendment*:

1: There is no “hate speech exception” to the First Amendment.

2: “Threats of violence and incitement to violence are not protected.”

3: “Hate crime laws can punish violence or vandalism based on the offender targeting particular groups,” *but that doesn't allow punishment of “supposed hate speech.*


----------



## Eyepublius

*WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?*
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. 

*Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.*


----------



## Flopper

Flopper said:


> Also, most supporters of the two parties have certain issues that they will go against the party and their are issues in which people are on both sides and will flip flop for political reasons. I





Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> It is illegal censorship when tenured professors are fired over political beliefs.
> It is illegal to fire people over sexual allegations that were never proven in court.
> It is illegal to fire people over old racist jokes or blackface.
> It is illegal to fire people who refuse an vaccine not FDA approved.


I assume that you mean it is illegal because of either federal or state laws, not the constitution.


----------



## Ben Thomson

Dogmaphobe said:


> Yes, there should be SOME limits. I support the "Some" as defined during the bulk of my 66 year life up until recent times.
> 
> The authoritarian left has expanded that "some" to the point where it means "anything they don't like", however, and that is a very dangerous thing, indeed.


The authoritarian left..funny hearing that come from somebody who probably has no problem with a right wing authoritarian oligarchy.


----------



## Flopper

Eyepublius said:


> *WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?*
> Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:
> 
> Obscenity
> Fighting words
> Defamation (including libel and slander)
> Child pornography
> Perjury
> Blackmail
> Incitement to imminent lawless action
> True threats
> Solicitations to commit crimes
> Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list.
> 
> *Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.*


The 1st amendment does not specify which categories of free speech are not protected.  The construction extends the freedom of speech to *all of the above*, but keep mind that protection is only from acts of congress. It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech.*..." So to answer your question, none. 

The  constitution is simply protecting your right to free speech from acts of congress.  Federals courts, state and federal laws and state constitution have extend that the constitutional protection of free speech to all state and local government and exclude objectionable speech.


----------



## K9Buck

Ben Thomson said:


> The authoritarian left..funny hearing that come from somebody who probably has no problem with a right wing authoritarian oligarchy.


I'm pretty sure that the American right supports freedom and limited government.  An oligarchy is antithetical to right-wing ideology.


----------



## Ben Thomson

K9Buck said:


> I'm pretty sure that the American right supports freedom and limited government.  An oligarchy is antithetical to right-wing ideology.


Tin foil hats claim to want small government, right up to having the government controlled by a small group of old wealthy white men...seems they want to go back to that ideal.


----------



## K9Buck

Ben Thomson said:


> Tin foil hats claim to want small government, right up to having the government controlled by a small group of old wealthy white men...seems they want to go back to that ideal.


Not really.  Most of us just pretty much want to be left alone so that we can pursue life, liberty, and happiness.  It's the left that wants to control every facet of society, not the right.  It's the left that views everyone as subjects wherein the right views citizens as citizens.  You're apparently of the belief that the only way to achieve prosperity and happiness is through government.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Censorship’ or the people determining what speech is appropriate as intended by the Framers, absent unwarranted interference by government and the courts.
> 
> Comparing ‘private ‘censorship’ with government censorship is clearly a fallacy – the latter is un-Constitutional; the former is not.
> 
> Private ‘censorship’ is devoid of the authority and power of the state; government censorship is comprehensive, private ‘censorship’ is not – that a private publisher might elect to not disseminate certain information doesn’t mean there aren’t other sources where that information can be found; that wouldn’t be the case with government censorship.


All if most state recognized the rights of business to censorship, such as preventing employees from divulging trade secrets, and in general controlling most speech within the business, however there are some exception.  When a bar owner announces that anyone using offensive language will not served, he is within his rights.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Ben Thomson said:


> The authoritarian left..funny hearing that come from somebody who probably has no problem with a right wing authoritarian oligarchy.


Actually, you are quite wrong about that, but if you prefer being uneducated and living in a fantasy world, go for it boy child.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> When you say both parties, are you speaking of the actually leadership of two parties, RNC and DNC or are you speaking of comments from party members, politicians and supporters.


Both I guess. Admittedly, I'm generalizing, and I'm not saying all Ds and Rs are hypocrites, but - especially on here - it's pretty glaring.


Flopper said:


> There are really not many democrats or republicans that will stick to the party line in every circumstance.


Again, I'm not talking about ideological purity. I'm talking about consistency with one's own purported views and values. On this particular issue, we have Democrats arguing for the right of a business to discriminate who would be vehemently opposed to it in another context. Likewise we have Republicans, who make great pretense about protected the rights of business, frothing at the mouth to regulate social media. And the ONLY difference is how it impacts the fortunes of their party. As long businesses are discriminating against conservatives, Dems are big fans. As long government is cracking down on businesses that opposed Trump, Republicans will cheer.


----------



## Flopper

Stann said:


> The founding fathers could never imagine a scenario where people could become so gullible they would believe all these lies. People used to have common sense.


And I'm pretty sure that they could never imagine that a text I am writing now could be echoed through out this country and around the world to potentially billions of people to be read and modify to support any cause or agenda with impunity.  In colonial times, what was spoken or written generally travel no further than the listener or reader and in rare occurrence to one of the 16 local newspaper that were typically one page filled with announcements, ads, and news of interest to the townspeople.   

IMHO,  the founders major concern in regard to the 1st amendment was there freedom to state and write their opinions without interference of British government or the new government to be formed.   Thus, when they wrote the first amendment they were concerned with only congress prohibiting the free exercise of speech.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What you and other conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture’ runs counter to the original intent of the Framers.
> 
> That conservatives are once again at odds with the Framers is of course nothing new.


Ruining someone's life because you don't like his politics and electing yourself the thought police is the anthitesis of freedom.  It's runs contrary to the "tolerance" that Liberals demand.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world government, but because the people will demand it.


Once you put more restrictions on the freedom of speech, you've started shredding our Bill of Rights.  Then of course, your left has had its eyes on eliminating the Second Amendment rights.  In short, the left is a danger to our freedoms.  If it had its way, we would be living under One-Party rule instead of the Constitution and the one thing that never changes under One-Party rule is, authoritarianism, oppression, tyranny and murder.
As for misinformation, you might start with the news media.  
There was a case years ago, involving two reporters and Fox news.  Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I don't recall the details, but here's the basics of the news story.  Two Fox reporters were given a story assignment.  They did their research and presented it to the head of Fox.  It was reviewed and they were told to go back and rewrite the story in a more favorable light.  They did this and presented it for reviewal again and were told to change it further.  At this point, they refused and were let go.  The two reporters sued Fox and the case went to court.  The judges decision:  Because of the First Amendment, news agencies are "not" required to tell the truth, only do stories approved by their employers.  Hence, because of that judgement, "all" news media lies when it fits their company owners narrative.  
It would be nice if ONLY the news agencies were held to a higher standard and mandated to tell only the truth, but once you could do that, you can tell the general public what they can and can't say and when the government decides what you can or can't say, that's when the authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and murder creep in, for the government will dictate what opponents can or can't say and use force to ensure its side is the only one heard.


----------



## Flopper

LuckyDuck said:


> Once you put more restrictions on the freedom of speech, you've started shredding our Bill of Rights.  Then of course, your left has had its eyes on eliminating the Second Amendment rights.  In short, the left is a danger to our freedoms.  If it had its way, we would be living under One-Party rule instead of the Constitution and the one thing that never changes under One-Party rule is, authoritarianism, oppression, tyranny and murder.
> As for misinformation, you might start with the news media.
> There was a case years ago, involving two reporters and Fox news.  Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I don't recall the details, but here's the basics of the news story.  Two Fox reporters were given a story assignment.  They did their research and presented it to the head of Fox.  It was reviewed and they were told to go back and rewrite the story in a more favorable light.  They did this and presented it for reviewal again and were told to change it further.  At this point, they refused and were let go.  The two reporters sued Fox and the case went to court.  The judges decision:  Because of the First Amendment, news agencies are "not" required to tell the truth, only do stories approved by their employers.  Hence, because of that judgement, "all" news media lies when it fits their company owners narrative.
> It would be nice if ONLY the news agencies were held to a higher standard and mandated to tell only the truth, but once you could do that, you can tell the general public what they can and can't say and when the government decides what you can or can't say, that's when the authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and murder creep in, for the government will dictate what opponents can or can't say and use force to ensure its side is the only one heard.


I'm not suggesting goverment abridge freedom of speech. That is clearly a violation of the constitution.  However, the news media, and social media are not obliged to spread lies and misinformation.  It wasn't till the 2nd half of the 20th century, that the media totally abandoned the old New York Times slogan,  "All the News That's Fit to Print".   Throughout the 18th, 19th,  and into  the 20 century the news media used desertion in what they labelled as news.


----------



## Skylar

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.



The government doesn't need to prohibit such misinformation. Private businesses can regulate their own content. 

As FB did when they showed Trump the door.


----------



## Skylar

LuckyDuck said:


> Once you put more restrictions on the freedom of speech, you've started shredding our Bill of Rights.  Then of course, your left has had its eyes on eliminating the Second Amendment rights.  In short, the left is a danger to our freedoms.  If it had its way, we would be living under One-Party rule instead of the Constitution and the one thing that never changes under One-Party rule is, authoritarianism, oppression, tyranny and murder.
> As for misinformation, you might start with the news media.
> There was a case years ago, involving two reporters and Fox news.  Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I don't recall the details, but here's the basics of the news story.  Two Fox reporters were given a story assignment.  They did their research and presented it to the head of Fox.  It was reviewed and they were told to go back and rewrite the story in a more favorable light.  They did this and presented it for reviewal again and were told to change it further.  At this point, they refused and were let go.  The two reporters sued Fox and the case went to court.  The judges decision:  Because of the First Amendment, news agencies are "not" required to tell the truth, only do stories approved by their employers.  Hence, because of that judgement, "all" news media lies when it fits their company owners narrative.
> It would be nice if ONLY the news agencies were held to a higher standard and mandated to tell only the truth, but once you could do that, you can tell the general public what they can and can't say and when the government decides what you can or can't say, that's when the authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and murder creep in, for the government will dictate what opponents can or can't say and use force to ensure its side is the only one heard.



Aren't you guy the ones that tried to overthrow the government, arguing that the VP, all by himself, gets to decide who the next president is?

Where was the constitution in your little insurrection?


----------



## DudleySmith

The original intent was to protect political speech, not obscenity and porn, or alarmist nonsense, which is why they deported James Otis and several others. But, as one Founder pointed out, 'freedom of the press' belonged to those who owned the presses, so it was understood the 'right' was problematic and not without its flaws.


----------



## DudleySmith

Skylar said:


> The government doesn't need to prohibit such misinformation. Private businesses can regulate their own content.
> 
> As FB did when they showed Trump the door.



The internet is a public carrier, and as such the service providers shouldn't be censoring political or religious speech just because some corporate asshats don't like something.


----------



## Skylar

DudleySmith said:


> The internet is a public carrier, and as such the service providers shouldn't be censoring political or religious speech just because some corporate asshats don't like something.



How does 'the internet being a public carrier' forbid someone from regulating the content of their own websites?

I have several websites. Does that mean I have to let anyone post anything they want on them? Do I get a choice in the matter? 

You're arguing that no website can set its own rules for the content on its own site. The rules of this board alone demonstrate that such a view is pseudo-legal nonsense.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> How does 'the internet being a public carrier' forbid someone from regulating the content of their own websites?


The same way being a "public accommodation" forbids someone from discriminating.


----------



## DudleySmith

Skylar said:


> How does 'the internet being a public carrier' forbid someone from regulating the content of their own websites?
> 
> I have several websites. Does that mean I have to let anyone post anything they want on them? Do I get a choice in the matter?
> 
> You're arguing that no website can set its own rules for the content on its own site. The rules of this board alone demonstrate that such a view is pseudo-legal nonsense.



Bullshit. It's no different than public airwaves, and since the big outfifts are effectively monopolies with massive market shares they have no right to censor websites, block them from search engines, or deny them access to servers and satellite services. You commies and deviants will just have to get over it.


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> Bullshit. It's no different than public airwaves, and since the big outfifts are effectively monopolies with massive market shares they have no right to censor websites, block them from search engines, or deny them access to servers and satellite services. You commies and deviants will just have to get over it.


Hilarious. You're advocating for state run media, and calling others "commies and deviants". Hypocrite much?


----------



## DudleySmith

dblack said:


> Hilarious. You're advocating for state run media, and calling others "commies and deviants". Hypocrite much?



Ah,  more rubbish. I see you don't like the Bill Of Rights either. You think private corporations will enforce the laws? Those big corporations all signed on with BLM, and they were in bed with Red China since the 1970's, when Carter and REagan gave them MFN status and opened up access to massive amounts of slave labor for them.


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> Ah,  more rubbish. I see you don't like the Bill Of Rights either.


Love it. It's just that I've actually read and understood it. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ..."


----------



## DudleySmith

dblack said:


> Love it. It's just that I've actually read and understood it. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ..."



And you obviously didn't understand it. It's one of the government's primary functions to enforce it.


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> You think private corporations will enforce the laws?


I certainly hope not.


DudleySmith said:


> Those big corporations all signed on with BLM, and they were in bed with Red China since the 1970's, when Carter and REagan gave them MFN status and opened up access to massive amounts of slave labor for them.


You forgot the Jewish space lasers.


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> And you obviously didn't understand it. It's one of the government's primary functions to enforce it.


No, you have simpleton's understanding of the First Amendment. It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls.


----------



## DudleySmith

dblack said:


> I certainly hope not.
> 
> You forgot the Jewish space lasers.



You forgot the list of big corporations is easily found and has been posted here several times, and the history of Red Chinese and big companies is also available. The 'space lasers' all live in your head, not mine.


----------



## DudleySmith

dblack said:


> No, you have simpleton's understanding of the First Amendment. It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls.



They aren't banning trolls, they're banning content they don't like. You're the simpleton here.


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> They aren't banning trolls, they're banning content they don't like. You're the simpleton here.


Ok, please amend my post thusly: "It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls banning content they don't like."

Still holds. Still has nothing to do with the First Amendment.


----------



## DudleySmith

dblack said:


> Ok, please amend my post thusly: "It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls banning content they don't like."
> 
> Still holds. Still has nothing to do with the First Amendment.



Wrong again. It prevents private corporations from using a government granted monopoly from picking and choosing which customers it will serve and those it won't. They use public carriers to transmit their cable and wi fi signals, and like the phone company they can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, speech, etc.


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> Wrong again. It prevents private corporations from using a government granted monopoly from picking and choosing which customers it will serve and those it won't.


Oh, for fuck's sake. Facebook is not a government granted monopoly. How long have you been a socialist? The "virtual monopoly" schtick is their go-to when they want to nationalize something.


----------



## DudleySmith

dblack said:


> Oh, for fuck's sake. Facebook is not a government granted monopoly. How long have you been a socialist? The "virtual monopoly" schtick is their go-to when they want to nationalize something.



lol you never seem to have anything but sniveling. The 'virtual monopoly shctick' is going to court soon, so obviously there is a lot to it. They're no different than the railroads or Standard Oil or any number of Trusts formed over the last two hundred years. Like I said you really have no clue at all about the issues or what the government is supposed to do and not do.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DudleySmith said:


> The internet is a public carrier, and as such the service providers shouldn't be censoring political or religious speech just because some corporate asshats don't like something.


Wrong.

The internet is made up of private publishers and organizations at liberty to edit content as they see fit and to determine who will or will not participate.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to regulate private publishers and organizations; indeed, for government to seek to do so would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## DudleySmith

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The internet is made up of private publishers and organizations at liberty to edit content as they see fit and to determine who will or will not participate.
> 
> It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to regulate private publishers and organizations; indeed, for government to seek to do so would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.



lol more commie rubbish. Suddenly now that corporations have hired their leaders they're suddenly all ;'Libertarian n Stuff'. lol @ the shallow losers and their hypocrisy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DudleySmith said:


> lol you never seem to have anything but sniveling. The 'virtual monopoly shctick' is going to court soon, so obviously there is a lot to it. They're no different than the railroads or Standard Oil or any number of Trusts formed over the last two hundred years. Like I said you really have no clue at all about the issues or what the government is supposed to do and not do.


Also wrong.

Social media are nothing like the railroads or Standard Oil.

The internet is infinite with ample opportunities for communication – the notion that social media are monopolies is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Just because rightists incorrectly perceive social media being ‘mean’ to conservatives doesn’t justify unwarranted, un-Constitutional ‘regulation’ of social media.


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> lol you never seem to have anything but sniveling. The 'virtual monopoly shctick' is going to court soon, so obviously there is a lot to it. They're no different than the railroads or Standard Oil or any number of Trusts formed over the last two hundred years. Like I said you really have no clue at all about the issues or what the government is supposed to do and not do.


How long have you been a socialist?


----------



## DudleySmith

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also wrong.
> 
> Social media are nothing like the railroads or Standard Oil.
> 
> The internet is infinite with ample opportunities for communication – the notion that social media are monopolies is as ridiculous as it is wrong.
> 
> Just because rightists incorrectly perceive social media being ‘mean’ to conservatives doesn’t justify unwarranted, un-Constitutional ‘regulation’ of social media.



Claytie the Commie shills for Big Biz and REd China. lol


----------



## DudleySmith

dblack said:


> How long have you been a socialist?



How long have you realized you can't think for yourself?


----------



## rupol2000

Yes, disinformation should be countered, including the one that winds up the statistics of deaths from covid and promotes the vaccine, without giving any guarantees.


----------



## dblack

rupol2000 said:


> Yes, disinformation should be countered ...



Who should counter it? More specifically, should it be the government?


----------



## dblack

DudleySmith said:


> How long have you realized you can't think for yourself?


The "virtual monopoly" bullshit is the go to excuse for socialists when they want to nationalize something. And now Trumpsters are playing the same game - just because Twitter was mean to their hero. Pathetic.


----------



## rupol2000

dblack said:


> Who should counter it? More specifically, should it be the government?


They have to do it in any case. Lying and manipulating facts is a fraud, it is formally illegal.
The problem is that some of these frauds are corrupt and are associated with the authorities themselves and the politics of some groups that  supported by  the state apparatus.


----------



## dblack

rupol2000 said:


> They have to do it in any case. Lying and manipulating facts is a fraud, it is formally illegal.


That's not what we're talking about. As you point out, fraud is already illegal.


rupol2000 said:


> The problem is that some of these frauds are corrupt and are associated with the authorities themselves and the politics of some groups that  supported by  the state apparatus.


Ok, then that brings us back to my original question. Who should in be charge of countering misinformation?


----------



## 2aguy

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.




Nope...only incitement to actual violence should be stopped.....


----------



## Death Angel

Flopper said:


> The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials.  Just as there is a big difference between the statements,  "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations"  The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.
> 
> IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.


There is, and yes there should be.
The Founders recognized this right to criticize the king, and the church, without persecution.We have far overstepped the original intent.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws

Asclepias said:


> IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home.  If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.
> 
> View attachment 513663



But do you STATE BOLDLY, CLEARLY, and HONESTLY all of your rules BEFORE people enter your home?  Or are you like everybody else and expect them to read your mind?

Do you continually change, alter, and misinform guests with decieving rhetoric, corporate psycho-babble, and political jargon that means absolutely nothing.....as Facebook and Twitter do??


----------



## Asclepias

Toffeenut Baconsmuggler said:


> But do you STATE BOLDLY, CLEARLY, and HONESTLY all of your rules BEFORE people enter your home?


No. I dont have to. You weren't raised in a barn so I expect your ass to act like it.  If you dont you will get your ass booted.


----------



## Asclepias

Toffeenut Baconsmuggler said:


> Do you continually change, alter, and misinform guests with decieving rhetoric, corporate psycho-babble, and political jargon that means absolutely nothing.....as Facebook and Twitter do??


If i did, no one is forcing your ass to come to my house.


----------



## dblack

Toffeenut Baconsmuggler said:


> But do you STATE BOLDLY, CLEARLY, and HONESTLY all of your rules BEFORE people enter your home?  Or are you like everybody else and expect them to read your mind?
> 
> Do you continually change, alter, and misinform guests with decieving rhetoric, corporate psycho-babble, and political jargon that means absolutely nothing.....as Facebook and Twitter do??


It doesn't really matter. In the end, I have the right to kick them off my property.


----------



## rupol2000

2aguy said:


> Nope...only incitement to actual violence should be stopped.....


Strength isn't always bad. if you do not stop the predator, he will eat all the animals, but he will not stop himself. If you do not stop the sex maniacs, they will rape and eat all the children. The United States has adopted the correct concept, Europe has adopted the concept of "educating", but it is immoral and does not actually work


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws

Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​

There ARE limits.   Well, not so much "limits" as people using sense, etiquette, and manners to convey thoughts and express emotions.   Something that just does not happen anymore......well, extremely rarely.

You have the right to free speech, as long as............

you aren't impeding someone elses free speech.
you aren't plagiarizing someone else.
you aren't invoking an air of fear or violence.
you aren't degrading, belittling, or harassing others.
you aren't using it for your personal stepping stool to gain unlawful power over others.
you aren't threatening others.
you aren't lying through your teeth.
you keep it clean, professional, and to the point.


But the 21st century is all about the "ME, ME, ME" generation.  They don't care what they say, how they say it, to whom it's said, who it hurts, who it destroys, or what threats, tantrums, and lies they have to use in order to get what they want to serve their private agenda's and self-promoting propaganda.


----------



## Ivan88

The world would be a much better place if Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Bush 1 & 2, were not able to speak or  do stuff.


----------

