How are we going to stop the liberal war on free speech and conservative voices?

[martybegan]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Why is it the partisans cannot grasp that free speech is a function of the Govt, not of private companies.

Why can't you grasp that the OP is talking about the general inability of progressives to even tolerate opposing viewpoints?

It's an inability that most of our population suffers from.

I'm fine with calling them out for being closed-minded, and quite illiberal. But I think it's dangerous to conflate PC censorship, done by private citizens and business, as a violation of free speech. And not just as a technical legal matter. A media outlet making decisions about what it will, and won't, publish IS free speech. It's just free speech you disagree with.

That said, the anger of the culture wars is fueling fascist yearnings on both sides. It's a real danger.

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

I disagree. I think it's time to introduce them to the joys of the free market, and start looking for the Next Big Thing to replace them. If it's not out there today, it will be tomorrow.

The thing is platforms like facebook seem to favor the ONE BIG THING, to increase interconnectivity.

Better to just declare them a commons/utility and regulate them.

 

[bodecea]

Why is it the partisans cannot grasp that free speech is a function of the Govt, not of private companies.

Why can't you grasp that the OP is talking about the general inability of progressives to even tolerate opposing viewpoints?

It's an inability that most of our population suffers from.

I'm fine with calling them out for being closed-minded, and quite illiberal. But I think it's dangerous to conflate PC censorship, done by private citizens and business, as a violation of free speech. And not just as a technical legal matter. A media outlet making decisions about what it will, and won't, publish IS free speech. It's just free speech you disagree with.

That said, the anger of the culture wars is fueling fascist yearnings on both sides. It's a real danger.

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

I disagree. I think it's time to introduce them to the joys of the free market, and start looking for the Next Big Thing to replace them. If it's not out there today, it will be tomorrow.

The thing is platforms like facebook seem to favor the ONE BIG THING, to increase interconnectivity.

Better to just declare them a commons/utility and regulate them.

Ah.....have the government take them over, eh? Federalize them.

 

[dblack]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Why is it the partisans cannot grasp that free speech is a function of the Govt, not of private companies.

Why can't you grasp that the OP is talking about the general inability of progressives to even tolerate opposing viewpoints?

It's an inability that most of our population suffers from.

I'm fine with calling them out for being closed-minded, and quite illiberal. But I think it's dangerous to conflate PC censorship, done by private citizens and business, as a violation of free speech. And not just as a technical legal matter. A media outlet making decisions about what it will, and won't, publish IS free speech. It's just free speech you disagree with.

That said, the anger of the culture wars is fueling fascist yearnings on both sides. It's a real danger.

You realize that YOU were the first one to bring up "free speech", right? Looks remarkably like a deflection to me.

Hmm... I don't realize that, because it isn't true.

 

[dblack]

Forcing Facebook to follow the 1st amendment isn't anyone giving up liberty.

There's nothing to follow. The First Amendment doesn't apply to non-governmental entities.

My argument is facebook is the digital age's equivalent to the commons, and thus open for government regulation.

At least to the level of imposing the 1st amendment on them.

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

 

[Darkwind]

It wasn't all that long ago that the progressives were making a big noise about if a company is so large as to begin to affect public opinion, that they had a moral responsibility to the public to moderate their influence or be subject to regulation.

We now see that when those giant corporate entities influence public opinion and the culture of the world, as long as that influence it toward the progressive; hey, its okay with them.

Meanwhile, a measly 5 million people in a Constitutionally protected advocacy group needs to be silenced and shut down. Lets not even get started with the efforts to shut down talk radio's conservative bent through fairness doctrines (actual government programs).

However, if conservatives are a great in numbers as they claim, then why not start a movement to stop using facebook and youtube and create a large and influential company as facebook, google, and youtube?

I wonder, however, if conservative voices decided to get very, very, very vocal on these platforms, would the left call for another special prosecutor and claim that the next election is being influenced because other voices are being heard?

 

[Darkwind]

Forcing Facebook to follow the 1st amendment isn't anyone giving up liberty.

There's nothing to follow. The First Amendment doesn't apply to non-governmental entities.

My argument is facebook is the digital age's equivalent to the commons, and thus open for government regulation.

At least to the level of imposing the 1st amendment on them.

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

Do you apply that to talk radio and Fox News too?

 

[BlindBoo]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

There is a (L)iberal war on conservative free speech? Wow. good to know. How many KIA or wounded for speaking concerva-speak?

Now let's discuss stupid trolls, and ask a question: Is it legitimate to point out and mock the stupid, ignorant and usually absurd threads they start?

Example: This one.

The exculpatory evidence that there is no war on conservatives speaking / posting can be seen every day on the new post page, where conservatives - self defined conservatives, mainly anarchists and iconoclasts - post stupid threads and posts, such as one can read on this thread.

Wow, where to start....

You want to see the casualty list?
Look no further than the current YouTube demonitizing practices or Facebook & Twitter just flat out blocking people. Then check out the college campuses. Just last night I saw a conservative professor who was fired for expressing his free speech in a blog. He has a date before the state supreme court pending.

And lol at the names you lamely attempted to classify me as.


This issue was a "serious problem" for many of you on the left when you were pushing the fairness doctrine for equal time. You failed in that attempt so your next recourse was to just do everything possible to shut down speech from the right. From actual violence to prevent speech to bans on Facebook and Twitter.


Your post is foolish at best

The Fairness Doctrine covered Broadcast Networks Radio and Television, because of the limit number of channels at the time. Cable killed it. Nor did it ever require equal time for opposing view points either.

It is illiberal to oppose free speech, even conservative. Those little wannabe fascist on campus should know that too. Liberals need to call them out when ever possible.

 

[dblack]

There's nothing to follow. The First Amendment doesn't apply to non-governmental entities.

My argument is facebook is the digital age's equivalent to the commons, and thus open for government regulation.

At least to the level of imposing the 1st amendment on them.

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

Do you apply that to talk radio and Fox News too?

What do you mean? I'm opposed to government taking over private interests, period. But the middle ground is worse. It invites private companies to profit on the taxpayer dime, and it invites public officials to enhance their power and wealth doing the dirty deed with business.

 

[BlindBoo]

However, if conservatives are a great in numbers as they claim, then why not start a movement to stop using facebook and youtube and create a large and influential company as facebook, google, and youtube?

Good idea. We can call it Fakebook. Where nothing is real and everyone is a fake persona. You get banned if you start post truthful news.

 

[Darkwind]

My argument is facebook is the digital age's equivalent to the commons, and thus open for government regulation.

At least to the level of imposing the 1st amendment on them.

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

Do you apply that to talk radio and Fox News too?

What do you mean? I'm opposed to government taking over private interests, period. But the middle ground is worse. It invites private companies to profit on the taxpayer dime, and it invites public officials to enhance their power and wealth doing the dirty deed with business.

So, free speech for thee, but not for Me.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -- Noam Chomsky

 

[Darkwind]

However, if conservatives are a great in numbers as they claim, then why not start a movement to stop using facebook and youtube and create a large and influential company as facebook, google, and youtube?

Good idea. We can call it Fakebook. Where nothing is real and everyone is a fake persona. You get banned if you start post truthful news.

Why are you against the freedom of people to express themselves with the truth? I'm sure you fail to realize that you don't have a monopoly on truth.

 

[dblack]

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

Do you apply that to talk radio and Fox News too?

What do you mean? I'm opposed to government taking over private interests, period. But the middle ground is worse. It invites private companies to profit on the taxpayer dime, and it invites public officials to enhance their power and wealth doing the dirty deed with business.

So, free speech for thee, but not for Me.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -- Noam Chomsky

??? How did you glean anything like that from what I said?

 

[Cellblock2429]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

/——/ Many Years ago, Rush Limbaugh said we can not work with liberals, we can not reach across the aisle, we can not be their friends nor can we trust them. They must be defeated. And it’s still true today.

 

[Darkwind]

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

Do you apply that to talk radio and Fox News too?

What do you mean? I'm opposed to government taking over private interests, period. But the middle ground is worse. It invites private companies to profit on the taxpayer dime, and it invites public officials to enhance their power and wealth doing the dirty deed with business.

So, free speech for thee, but not for Me.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -- Noam Chomsky

??? How did you glean anything like that from what I said?

You are willing to silence the speech of businesses through government regulation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Why is it the partisans cannot grasp that free speech is a function of the Govt, not of private companies.

I don't notice anyone talking about "freedom of speech", except for leftists trying to rationalize/divert. One can object to censorship - and be correct - without having to invoke the First Amendment.

The prohibition against censorship only applies to the Govt, private entities can censor as damn well much as they please. If you do not like their censorship, do not use their product. Keep the damn government out of it.

Again, the problem here is that leftists like you can't tell the difference between "immoral" and "illegal". I'm talking about objecting to something because it's bad, and all you can say is, "It's legal!" as if that's relevant.

When I start talking about "the prohibition against censorship", you'll know, because I'll say so specifically. Until then, I'm discussing right and wrong, and you're gonna be lost with no moral compass.

 

[BlindBoo]

Forcing Facebook to follow the 1st amendment isn't anyone giving up liberty.
Zuckerberg can still post on his own forum and others his viewpoints. So can everyone else.

Simple....

YOU stop using Facebook and Google....instead of whining that someone ELSE should protect you.

Fine, YOU stop going outside your house.

The internet is part of the commons, sites like facebook have become part of the commons. Letting the suppress speech based on their own political views is tantamount to letting government do it.

So is this a right wing call for a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" and Net Neutrality?

Not really, more of an extension of the concept of the commons into the digital age.

Fairness doctrine forces a broadcaster to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, net neutrality involves data prioritization.

This wouldn't impact facebooks own speech, it would just say they can't favor one viewpoint over the other intrinsically.

Only political candidates were granted equal time. Opposing views needed to be granted the opportunity to give their point of view, not equal time to whatever story they took issue with.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Why is it the partisans cannot grasp that free speech is a function of the Govt, not of private companies.

I don't notice anyone talking about "freedom of speech", except for leftists trying to rationalize/divert. One can object to censorship - and be correct - without having to invoke the First Amendment.

The prohibition against censorship only applies to the Govt, private entities can censor as damn well much as they please. If you do not like their censorship, do not use their product. Keep the damn government out of it.

Again, the problem here is that leftists like you can't tell the difference between "immoral" and "illegal". I'm talking about objecting to something because it's bad, and all you can say is, "It's legal!" as if that's relevant.

When I start talking about "the prohibition against censorship", you'll know, because I'll say so specifically. Until then, I'm discussing right and wrong, and you're gonna be lost with no moral compass.

Why do all your zealot that are so much further left than me insist on calling me a leftist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Why is it the partisans cannot grasp that free speech is a function of the Govt, not of private companies.

I don't notice anyone talking about "freedom of speech", except for leftists trying to rationalize/divert. One can object to censorship - and be correct - without having to invoke the First Amendment.

The prohibition against censorship only applies to the Govt, private entities can censor as damn well much as they please. If you do not like their censorship, do not use their product. Keep the damn government out of it.

Again, the problem here is that leftists like you can't tell the difference between "immoral" and "illegal". I'm talking about objecting to something because it's bad, and all you can say is, "It's legal!" as if that's relevant.

When I start talking about "the prohibition against censorship", you'll know, because I'll say so specifically. Until then, I'm discussing right and wrong, and you're gonna be lost with no moral compass.

Why do all your zealot that are so much further left than me insist on calling me a leftist?

If you don't want to be mistaken for a leftist, don't talk like one.

And I doubt you could find a person on Earth I'm farther left than.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most of those in the 21st Century who claim to be a conservative, hate democracy, liberals and progressives. They are not conservatives, they are ignorant iconoclastic followers, easily led by demagogues and charlatans. Most are single issue voters who cannot see the big picture, and always fall for the BIG LIES.

 

[bodecea]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

/——/ Many Years ago, Rush Limbaugh said we can not work with liberals, we can not reach across the aisle, we can not be their friends nor can we trust them. They must be defeated. And it’s still true today.

And you believe everything Master Rush says, eh?