Zone1 Do you believe in Free Speech

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Why?

Sad that the means of mass communication are no longer the reserve of the gatekeepers and the rulers?

Social media only makes gatekeepers and rulers more powerful.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Asking a serious question. You speak of "consequences" for certain viewpoints, yet you don't want to confirm you basically mean ruining anyone who doesn't think like you do.

Lying speech that results in criminal activity is not protected.

 

[martybegan]

Social media only makes gatekeepers and rulers more powerful.

Not if it were constrained by first amendment protections.

 

[martybegan]

Lying speech that results in criminal activity is not protected.

The thing is progressives consider anything but their viewpoints to be "lying".

And actually incitement is what you are trying to imply, and incitement has to be someone telling someone else DIRECTLY to do something criminal.

"Rise up against the government" is not incitement. "Go take over that federal building and take everyone hostage" is incitement.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Not if it were constrained by first amendment protections.

But it's not. So, not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[martybegan]

But it's not. So, not sure what point you're trying to make.

Constrain it with first amendment protections. Declare it a form of the commons, a digitial commons.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Constrain it with first amendment protections. Declare it a form of the commons, a digitial commons.

No.

 

[martybegan]

No.

Why not?

 

[Blaster]

There is no such thing as hate speech.

 

[JohnDB]

This is a question mainly for so-called liberals.


Do you support free speech, meaning the government has no right to infringe on it, to censor you, or punish you for exercising your free speech rights? Or do you support censorship? Also, do you believe corporations should have no right to censor free speech, or should they be doing that? (This is separate from First Amendment, it is just the idea of free speech.)



For example: If someone says an election is stolen, would you defend the right of that person to say it? Or do you believe that person should be silenced, either by the government or a corporation?

Is It okay for it to be labeled “misinformation“ or to be banned entirely? Should the person even be allowed to say it?

Of Course then we get into who is actually labeling something “misinformation”, or making the decision to delete/ban/block such remarks. That is of course censorship. You cannot claim to support “free speech”, and support these things. So who gets to make the decision of what is misinformation or not? Must be someone wise. Perhaps we can call that person an “Oracle of Truth” or something.


.



.



.

For example, in 2016 Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen. That President Trump was “illegitimate“. That he only won because of “Russia collusion”.

Did she have the right to say these things? Should she have been banned off Twitter? Was her saying these things ”misinformation?” Was it a “threat to democracy?” Should she had been arrested for saying such things?

I don’t recall anyone on the right saying she should be banned off Twitter. No one demanded social media and news agencies call the claims “misinformation” or to delete them.. Instead, Republicans just laughed it off. It didn’t piss us off in the least, it was just pathetic. They ridiculed her for it.


Now look at how Dems react to President Trump saying an election was rigged. Suddenly this is called “misinformation”, and of course “a threat to democracy”. They fully support censorship of Donald Trump and even just random people on the internet. Now they have arrested him for practicing free speech.

How can one claim they support Free Speech if they support censorship?

This isn't so much a question about free speech among peers as it is about election and political influence by foreign campaigns.

And Congress has absolutely done nothing because of the stocks they hold and the benefits they get from the foreign influences.

Look,
All the various social media platforms could stop the foreign influences anytime they wished. But they don't. The large multinational social media platforms have their own political agendas as well as stock price agendas.

What was it? Meta "discovered" a CCP network of over 7,000 accounts all aimed at promoting a different source for Covid-19 other than them! They "just" discovered it "recently"....and nobody calls them out on the lie.

More people trust Social Media for news and information than MSM...for a reason! Too slow and too biased to be truth. Especially when they keep losing court case after court case for lieing slander. (And billions of dollars)

When the truth is that these huge mutual fund corporations own the media through stocks...they can definitely control the news for their own purposes. Now the social media platforms own congress. There's not much in the way of truth left for average citizens.

 

[pknopp]

This board isn't a major platform from which many people get their information.

It also has far more defined moderation rules than things like twitter, yet allows far more breadth of thought than twittter previously did.

Major, minor, it makes no difference.

 

[martybegan]

Major, minor, it makes no difference.

it makes a huge difference.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Not if it were constrained by first amendment protections.

If in private business, yes, it does.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The thing is conservatives consider anything but their viewpoints to be "lying".

Speech in criminal activity is not protected.

 

[dblack]

Do you support free speech, meaning the government has no right to infringe on it, to censor you, or punish you for exercising your free speech rights?

Absolutely.

Also, do you believe corporations should have no right to censor free speech

No. They should have the right to control their websites, or newspapers, or whatever, as they see fit.

The government should have no say in either case. They shouldn't be able to control speech at all.

For example: If someone says an election is stolen, would you defend the right of that person to say it? Or do you believe that person should be silenced, either by the government or a corporation?

Corporations aren't government.

This is one of several key arguments showing that Trumpsters aren't conservatives, that they don't support free markets or individual rights, that they don't even understand the concepts.

 

[Slade3200]

This is a question mainly for so-called liberals.


Do you support free speech, meaning the government has no right to infringe on it, to censor you, or punish you for exercising your free speech rights? Or do you support censorship? Also, do you believe corporations should have no right to censor free speech, or should they be doing that? (This is separate from First Amendment, it is just the idea of free speech.)



For example: If someone says an election is stolen, would you defend the right of that person to say it? Or do you believe that person should be silenced, either by the government or a corporation?

Is It okay for it to be labeled “misinformation“ or to be banned entirely? Should the person even be allowed to say it?

Of Course then we get into who is actually labeling something “misinformation”, or making the decision to delete/ban/block such remarks. That is of course censorship. You cannot claim to support “free speech”, and support these things. So who gets to make the decision of what is misinformation or not? Must be someone wise. Perhaps we can call that person an “Oracle of Truth” or something.


.



.



.

For example, in 2016 Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen. That President Trump was “illegitimate“. That he only won because of “Russia collusion”.

Did she have the right to say these things? Should she have been banned off Twitter? Was her saying these things ”misinformation?” Was it a “threat to democracy?” Should she had been arrested for saying such things?

I don’t recall anyone on the right saying she should be banned off Twitter. No one demanded social media and news agencies call the claims “misinformation” or to delete them.. Instead, Republicans just laughed it off. It didn’t piss us off in the least, it was just pathetic. They ridiculed her for it.


Now look at how Dems react to President Trump saying an election was rigged. Suddenly this is called “misinformation”, and of course “a threat to democracy”. They fully support censorship of Donald Trump and even just random people on the internet. Now they have arrested him for practicing free speech.

How can one claim they support Free Speech if they support censorship?

Yes I believe in free speech. Yes I believe it’s legal to challenge an election. Trumps trouble is not for those things. His trouble is for crossing the boundaries of the law.

Now let me ask you a question. Do you believe in the rule of law?

 

[martybegan]

If in private business, yes, it does.

We constrain other private businesses. Can a phone company shut of the calls of a white supremacist?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Why not?

Because I am a capitalist. Private industry is private industry. You seem to want to have the big bad government regulate social media because you believe you have a right to it.

Utter madness.

 

[martybegan]

Because I am a capitalist. Private industry is private industry. You seem to want to have the big bad government regulate social media because you believe you have a right to it.

Utter madness.

We regulate private industry all the time. Since the government gives these companies protection from bad consequences of the speech, they can't claim it as their speech.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

We regulate private industry all the time. Since the government gives these companies protection from bad consequences of the speech, they can't claim it as their speech.

I see no evidence of government protecting these companies.