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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are you including the Liberals at UCLA and other liberal Universities? What about the "Liberal" Leftists in Venezuela? Actually...WHICH Liberals ARE you referring to?

The left has always sought to silence others and they continue to do so today while simultaneously claiming that they support the freedom of expression.

Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "silencing" them. It's just not lending them your megaphone.

And Mr. Zuckerberg has every legal right to keep his "megaphone" to himself, but he does NOT get to keep it to himself and continue to pretend that he isn't doing so.

Sure he does, he has every legal right to keep pretending as well

You misunderstand (that pesky "lack of moral compass" issue again). I am saying that he doesn't get to pretend his company is unbiased and have it be believed.

Do you really think he gives a shit what you believe? I think his 62 billion will console him tonight when he finds out you do not believe him!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

That is almost always the right answer.

 

[Cellblock2429]

And you believe everything Master Rush says, eh?

Many years ago he created the Dittoheads, and since then they have never had an original thought. Years ago I drove a County Mountie with only an AM radio. Driving rural CA in many areas, Limbaugh was the only thing I could find on the dial. At first I thought he might be a comedian, mocking Archie Bunker. But it took only a few minutes and couple of calls from Dittoheads to realize this guy was serious and hateful.

/----/
1.) First of all, a caller started the Ditto phrase meaning she agreed with the previous caller who liked Rush and his message.
2.) You need to listen to him for at last a few weeks to get his message correct.
3.) Nothing hate filled about Rush, otherwise I'd never listen to him. Example: Louie Farrakhan is hate filled so I don't listen to him.

I listened off and on to Limbaugh up until a few years ago, his Shtick has remained the same for more than 3 decades, and a number of his phrases have become the BIG LIES we read on this forum today.

/———/ What lies?

View attachment 187263

/——/ I stopped at your first distortion. Rush was quoting NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike.
NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike
You can apologize now.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Youtube isn't a government program. They are free to allow or disallow what ever they want. Today's version of Amos and Andy are free to post anything they want, and spout whatever they want to spout. Youtube just doesn't care to help them promote it.

Neither was that bakery!

PA laws cover religion, race, handicap, gender, and in some states, sexual orientation. Which of those catagories apply in this case?

The First Amendment.

Do you even know what the first amendment says, or who it limits?

/——/ Aside from religion, the 1st allows citizens to openly critique the government with out fear of prosecution. The King of England would have your head if you criticized him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The left has always sought to silence others and they continue to do so today while simultaneously claiming that they support the freedom of expression.

Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "silencing" them. It's just not lending them your megaphone.

And Mr. Zuckerberg has every legal right to keep his "megaphone" to himself, but he does NOT get to keep it to himself and continue to pretend that he isn't doing so.

Sure he does, he has every legal right to keep pretending as well

You misunderstand (that pesky "lack of moral compass" issue again). I am saying that he doesn't get to pretend his company is unbiased and have it be believed.

Do you really think he gives a shit what you believe? I think his 62 billion will console him tonight when he finds out you do not believe him!

I gotta say, your "he's rich, so fuck you" outlook really brands you as a champion of the people, hon.

For the record, there have been a lot of rich CEOs who thought they didn't have to give a fuck what the "peons" who were their customers thought of them. And then their customers beat feet as soon as a competitor popped up.

So if Mr. Zuckerberg really thinks he can bullshit the public without consequence, because he's big and rich and important, I'll certainly be interested in see how that turns out for him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

That is almost always the right answer.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any time when the answer to "How do we make this better?" was "We have the government do it."

 

[Cellblock2429]

Grampa Murked U, this is not a Freedom of Speech issue, it's a cultural/socio-political issue.

The Regressive Left is going to do everything it can to control what is heard, seen and read. And because it has near total control of social media, popular culture and education, and because it has a lion's share of the media, they get what they want.

Nothing they're doing is illegal or unconstitutional, per se, although it clearly flies in the face of the spirit of the First Amendment. But remember, those same people say the Constitution was written by rich white slave rapists anyway, so who cares.

I don't see anything that will change this. They're going for it now.
.

Right, they were banned for being Pro-Trump. Communists/Democrats despise our Constitution. They want it scrapped. This Facebook move is very predictable. The guy who runs it, is a huge Democrat donor. He's been systematically banning Trump supporters since the Election. He's a real POS.

At least like most conservatives you’re consistent at being ignorant and stupid.

Facebook is a private company, not a government entity, and at liberty to edit content as it sees fit, having nothing to do with the Constitution or ‘free speech.’

And how Factbook might edit its content endangers neither the Constitution nor free speech.

/——/ Yet libs want Rush and Fox News off the air.

 

[Wry Catcher]

/——/ 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?

Many years ago he created the Dittoheads, and since then they have never had an original thought. Years ago I drove a County Mountie with only an AM radio. Driving rural CA in many areas, Limbaugh was the only thing I could find on the dial. At first I thought he might be a comedian, mocking Archie Bunker. But it took only a few minutes and couple of calls from Dittoheads to realize this guy was serious and hateful.

/----/
1.) First of all, a caller started the Ditto phrase meaning she agreed with the previous caller who liked Rush and his message.
2.) You need to listen to him for at last a few weeks to get his message correct.
3.) Nothing hate filled about Rush, otherwise I'd never listen to him. Example: Louie Farrakhan is hate filled so I don't listen to him.

I listened off and on to Limbaugh up until a few years ago, his Shtick has remained the same for more than 3 decades, and a number of his phrases have become the BIG LIES we read on this forum today.

/———/ What lies?

All Mostly False statements involving Rush Limbaugh | PunditFact

 

[Syriusly]

Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "silencing" them. It's just not lending them your megaphone.

Media Matters tirelessly works to prohibit conservative speakers from being able to speak. That's just one significant example right there.

Media Matters has its own enforcers? Like the police or something? I had no idea.

Media Matters threatens organizations with boycotts, etc. for allowing conservatives to speak. Yea, the left supports freedom of expression.

Conservatives threaten actual people for speaking- like this conservative broadcaster

 

[Syriusly]

Grampa Murked U, this is not a Freedom of Speech issue, it's a cultural/socio-political issue.

The Regressive Left is going to do everything it can to control what is heard, seen and read. And because it has near total control of social media, popular culture and education, and because it has a lion's share of the media, they get what they want.

Nothing they're doing is illegal or unconstitutional, per se, although it clearly flies in the face of the spirit of the First Amendment. But remember, those same people say the Constitution was written by rich white slave rapists anyway, so who cares.

I don't see anything that will change this. They're going for it now.
.

Right, they were banned for being Pro-Trump. Communists/Democrats despise our Constitution. They want it scrapped. This Facebook move is very predictable. The guy who runs it, is a huge Democrat donor. He's been systematically banning Trump supporters since the Election. He's a real POS.

At least like most conservatives you’re consistent at being ignorant and stupid.

Facebook is a private company, not a government entity, and at liberty to edit content as it sees fit, having nothing to do with the Constitution or ‘free speech.’

And how Factbook might edit its content endangers neither the Constitution nor free speech.

/——/ Yet libs want Rush and Fox News off the air.

Yet contards want CNN and ABC and well- everyone but Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and his fellow travellers off the air.

 

[bodecea]

Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "silencing" them. It's just not lending them your megaphone.

Media Matters tirelessly works to prohibit conservative speakers from being able to speak. That's just one significant example right there.

Media Matters has its own enforcers? Like the police or something? I had no idea.

Media Matters threatens organizations with boycotts, etc. for allowing conservatives to speak. Yea, the left supports freedom of expression.

Conservatives threaten actual people for speaking- like this conservative broadcaster

Just RW foreplay.

 

[tycho1572]

The left has always sought to silence others and they continue to do so today while simultaneously claiming that they support the freedom of expression.

Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "silencing" them. It's just not lending them your megaphone.

And Mr. Zuckerberg has every legal right to keep his "megaphone" to himself, but he does NOT get to keep it to himself and continue to pretend that he isn't doing so.

Sure he does, he has every legal right to keep pretending as well

You misunderstand (that pesky "lack of moral compass" issue again). I am saying that he doesn't get to pretend his company is unbiased and have it be believed.

Do you really think he gives a shit what you believe? I think his 62 billion will console him tonight when he finds out you do not believe him!

Are you hoping to win a village idiot award?

 

[tycho1572]

I’m only asking because bodecea might be beating you, Golfing Gator .

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

That is almost always the right answer.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any time when the answer to "How do we make this better?" was "We have the government do it."

The Interstate Highway system!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "silencing" them. It's just not lending them your megaphone.

And Mr. Zuckerberg has every legal right to keep his "megaphone" to himself, but he does NOT get to keep it to himself and continue to pretend that he isn't doing so.

Sure he does, he has every legal right to keep pretending as well

You misunderstand (that pesky "lack of moral compass" issue again). I am saying that he doesn't get to pretend his company is unbiased and have it be believed.

Do you really think he gives a shit what you believe? I think his 62 billion will console him tonight when he finds out you do not believe him!

Are you hoping to win a village idiot award?

Are you going to be my new puppy?

It has been a couple of weeks since I had one of you zealots following me around trying to hump my leg in an effort to get my attention.

This is how I picture you right now...

 

[Cellblock2429]

And you believe everything Master Rush says, eh?

Many years ago he created the Dittoheads, and since then they have never had an original thought. Years ago I drove a County Mountie with only an AM radio. Driving rural CA in many areas, Limbaugh was the only thing I could find on the dial. At first I thought he might be a comedian, mocking Archie Bunker. But it took only a few minutes and couple of calls from Dittoheads to realize this guy was serious and hateful.

/----/
1.) First of all, a caller started the Ditto phrase meaning she agreed with the previous caller who liked Rush and his message.
2.) You need to listen to him for at last a few weeks to get his message correct.
3.) Nothing hate filled about Rush, otherwise I'd never listen to him. Example: Louie Farrakhan is hate filled so I don't listen to him.

I listened off and on to Limbaugh up until a few years ago, his Shtick has remained the same for more than 3 decades, and a number of his phrases have become the BIG LIES we read on this forum today.

/———/ What lies?

All Mostly False statements involving Rush Limbaugh | PunditFact

/—-/ What Rush said was correct. Sorry Tinkerbell

 

[tycho1572]

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.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

That is almost always the right answer.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any time when the answer to "How do we make this better?" was "We have the government do it."

The Interstate Highway system!

I think you might have just gained some ground on bodecea.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "silencing" them. It's just not lending them your megaphone.

Media Matters tirelessly works to prohibit conservative speakers from being able to speak. That's just one significant example right there.

Media Matters has its own enforcers? Like the police or something? I had no idea.

Media Matters threatens organizations with boycotts, etc. for allowing conservatives to speak. Yea, the left supports freedom of expression.

Conservatives threaten actual people for speaking- like this conservative broadcaster

Damn, is that a real tweet? I follow him on twitter, how did I miss that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

That is almost always the right answer.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any time when the answer to "How do we make this better?" was "We have the government do it."

The Interstate Highway system!

I think you might have just gained some ground on bodecea.