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

[Billy000]

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.

Dixie Chicks....anyone?...anyone?...anyone??

Some country singer who is easily replaced by anyone of the other 100 country singers?

What about them? Consumers spoke and they paid. Facebook, college & YouTube are not consumers. They are the conduit.

Stop voting, Gramps.

Stop humping my leg little boy

Hmm. Interesting statement.

 

[Dr Grump]

What about them? Consumers spoke and they paid. Facebook, college & YouTube are not consumers. They are the conduit.

But they are privately owned enterprises.....

 

[cnm]

Some country singer who is easily replaced by anyone of the other 100 country singers?

What about them? Consumers spoke and they paid. Facebook, college & YouTube are not consumers. They are the conduit.

Hilarious. FB and YT are put in the same free speech category as state college. Have you understood none of the explanations?

Oops, sorry. Of course you have. My bad.

 

[hadit]

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.

What do you propose? In the case of FB, it's a private company. In the case of Colleges - some are private, some are public.

Do you propose interfering in private companies? If so - what about the conservative dominated media?

If colleges get ANY public funding it should be stripped of they persist with the nonsense. And Facebook needs to burn in hell but people are too stupid to give it up. Gotta tell ma & pa what I had for dinner yo. Beyond stupid. Social media is a poison even without the political bullshit. As for Hollywood I pirate every single movie they make, fuckem. Act like a douche I'll just steal your licensed material.

I disagree.

They should provide a fair assortment of diverse views. They don't HAVE to provide a platform for EVERY speaker. They shouldn't, for example, have to provide a platform for Neo-Nazi's. At this point though - I question whether they are providing enough diverse views - that is the purpose of college, regardless of whether public money is involved or not. And - keep in mind, protests are also free speech, as long as they are peaceful.

Of course you disagree because it isn't your point of view or values being squashed like a bug.

She disagrees because your statement is factually wrong – and no one’s point of view or values are being ‘squashed like a bug.’

Again, state colleges and universities are held to the same First Amendment requirements, subject to the same First Amendment case law.

And like other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, it is not a right to say anything one wises anywhere he wishes at any time he wishes.

State colleges and universities are allowed by the First Amendment to take steps to ensure the public safety when rightwing speech seeks to incite imminent lawlessness or violence, where no free speech rights are ‘violated.’

Can you point to any occasion where a "right-winger" incited lawlessness or violence on a college campus that justified that college denying other "right-wingers" access to speak when requested by student groups?

 

[martybegan]

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

Of course it’s different, the shoe is on the other foot. Now suddenly people think they have a right to post on Facebook or view videos of goats fainting on YouTube. It is silly to see people get upset when they have to live by the same standards they set for others.

It's very different, but not because of why you think it is. If facebook enjoys protections from it's content being used to prosecute it, why should it feel the need to censor some viewpoints?

If they want to police their platform, make them liable if they fail to do so.

No half measures here.

Perhaps they don’t want their brand associated with people they don’t like. The only thing these people understand is money, the best course of action is hit them where hurts by not using their free services anymore. If enough people do, they’ll change their ways or lose the market share to another platform. Getting the government involved isn’t the solution.

Giving over a major player in the social media game to progressive wholesale isn't either.

Making up a bunch of baby facebooks for each political view isn't either.

At a minimum if they want to be all controlling and shit, remove the legal protection they have and force them to monitor the content they provide.

If they want to own it, make them own it.

Facebook has a right to associate their business with whomever they damn well please. If you don’t like it, log off and never return. You don’t have a right to their services, just like don’t have a right to force someone to bake a cake for my queer wedding. People want it both ways on this issue and I think it’s bullshit.

I would agree with you in 99% of the cases, but the issue with Facebook is it has become a major mode of exchange of information and ideas, and right now control of the narrative is what most of the fight is about.

Yes, people can make their own versions of Facebook, but that will lead to further balkanization and take us closer and closer to either an amicable divorce as a nation, or something worse.

You should also note that when it comes to the whole baker thing, i am not an absolutist when it comes to property rights. I find PA laws allowable when applied to actual PA's. so you can't deny a cupcake to a gay person walking into a store, or if every baker in a town got a case of the Jesus'es then government can intervene.

My facebook solution is probably not going to pass constitutional muster, but it's the idea I currently have now.

 

[martybegan]

Giving over a major player in the social media game to progressive wholesale isn't either.

Where's the emoji of a head banging against a wall?

I get your dilema, and the more I think about it, the more constitutional issues I see with my proposal.

At a minimum facebook should be forced to clearly elaborate on their posting policies, and be forced to state who they want to ban, and what they consider inappropriate posts.

 

[martybegan]

I bet your tune would be different if progressives were being banned for content, you fucking hack..

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

Yeah, but government taking over a privately-owned company? Kinda the textbook definition of socialism.

I have been changing my view on this the more i think about it.

A law requiring them to be open about their ban policies would probably be something most people could go along with.

 

[martybegan]

Declaring facebook to be a digital commons wouldn't require the police.

It will require the police to enforce it


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Nope. it would just open up facebook to lawsuits if they suppress speech based on content.

Is there even such thing as the "digital police"?

And lawsuits are only enforceable by the police


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Only if the losing side decides to ignore the courts.

Which everyone would do if not for the enforcement power of the government via the police.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So every single person would go full "fuck you" if not for the police?

 

[martybegan]

Lol, yet you are OK with the left posting fake news, phoney conspiracy theories, hate speech and lies.

An honest progressive is a figment of imagination.

Such as?

Basically every single occupy democrats post I see my friends link to.

So what you’re saying is that you can’t come up with a single example.

My friends spread this one around all the time.

FACT CHECK: Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?

That doesn’t qualify as “hate speech”, racism, conspiracy theory or even a lie. At worst, it’s a half truth. All of the biggest one day drops in value have come under Republican Administrations. Conversely, all of the biggest one day gains have also come under Republican Administrations.

It pales next to Michelle Obsma is a transgender. Or John Podesta ran a child sex ring out of a DC pizza parlour. Or Sandy Hook was a hoax.

Actually those are not worse, because they are far less believable. The point loss one makes it look like the dow always does worse under the last few Republican administrations, and uses real data to back it up, even if the premise is 100% incorrect (i.e. % loss vs. point loss).

The big lies are the easier ones to dismiss, the small ones are the things that change views and opinions.

 

[dblack]

It will require the police to enforce it


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Nope. it would just open up facebook to lawsuits if they suppress speech based on content.

Is there even such thing as the "digital police"?

And lawsuits are only enforceable by the police


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Only if the losing side decides to ignore the courts.

Which everyone would do if not for the enforcement power of the government via the police.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So every single person would go full "fuck you" if not for the police?

The point is, court decisions are backed by the force of law, by the implied threat that, if you do defy them, you'll be forced to comply by the police. This isn't controversial. It's a rather obvious observation of how government works.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. it would just open up facebook to lawsuits if they suppress speech based on content.

Is there even such thing as the "digital police"?

And lawsuits are only enforceable by the police


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Only if the losing side decides to ignore the courts.

Which everyone would do if not for the enforcement power of the government via the police.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So every single person would go full "fuck you" if not for the police?

The point is, court decisions are backed by the force of law, by the implied threat that, if you do defy them, you'll be forced to comply by the police. This isn't controversial. It's a rather obvious observation of how government works.

Only for people who don't want to follow the results of the courts.

One can be upset one lost in court, and still follow the results not just because one would be punished for not doing so.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What about them? Consumers spoke and they paid. Facebook, college & YouTube are not consumers. They are the conduit.

But they are privately owned enterprises.....

They were rejected by the public not some corporation or public entity.
I suspect they are not deemed "a danger to the community" by Facebook.

 

[dblack]

And lawsuits are only enforceable by the police


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Only if the losing side decides to ignore the courts.

Which everyone would do if not for the enforcement power of the government via the police.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So every single person would go full "fuck you" if not for the police?

The point is, court decisions are backed by the force of law, by the implied threat that, if you do defy them, you'll be forced to comply by the police. This isn't controversial. It's a rather obvious observation of how government works.

Only for people who don't want to follow the results of the courts.

One can be upset one lost in court, and still follow the results not just because one would be punished for not doing so.

Of course. But in that case you don't need a government court. Any third party arbiter would suffice. You turn to government when you need force. That's the whole point. Everyone wants to pretend it's something different (esp. when their people are wielding the force) but that's just delusion. When you pass a law, or a court issues a verdict, you're counting on the physical force of government to enforce it.

 

[martybegan]

Only if the losing side decides to ignore the courts.

Which everyone would do if not for the enforcement power of the government via the police.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So every single person would go full "fuck you" if not for the police?

The point is, court decisions are backed by the force of law, by the implied threat that, if you do defy them, you'll be forced to comply by the police. This isn't controversial. It's a rather obvious observation of how government works.

Only for people who don't want to follow the results of the courts.

One can be upset one lost in court, and still follow the results not just because one would be punished for not doing so.

Of course. But in that case you don't need a government court. Any third party arbiter would suffice. You turn to government when you need force. That's the whole point. Everyone wants to pretend it's something different (esp. when their people are wielding the force) but that's just delusion. When you pass a law, or a court issues a verdict, you're counting on the physical force of government to enforce it.

Only in the worst case scenario do you count on government force.

 

[dblack]

Which everyone would do if not for the enforcement power of the government via the police.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So every single person would go full "fuck you" if not for the police?

The point is, court decisions are backed by the force of law, by the implied threat that, if you do defy them, you'll be forced to comply by the police. This isn't controversial. It's a rather obvious observation of how government works.

Only for people who don't want to follow the results of the courts.

One can be upset one lost in court, and still follow the results not just because one would be punished for not doing so.

Of course. But in that case you don't need a government court. Any third party arbiter would suffice. You turn to government when you need force. That's the whole point. Everyone wants to pretend it's something different (esp. when their people are wielding the force) but that's just delusion. When you pass a law, or a court issues a verdict, you're counting on the physical force of government to enforce it.

Only in the worst case scenario do you count on government force.

Sigh -- the point is that law is built on the threat of force. You can't pretend that a law is "just a regulation" and doesn't employ that force. Every single law on the books can end up with someone getting shot if they persist in defying it. That's why we shouldn't make something a matter of law unless we're actually willing to see someone die over it.

Let's not lose track of why we're debating this. You're proposing new laws to control social media websites. Outside the glaringly obvious violation of the First Amendment, it's a question of whether controlling Facebook is worth employing coercive laws. I'd rather see it resolved voluntarily.

 

[martybegan]

So every single person would go full "fuck you" if not for the police?

The point is, court decisions are backed by the force of law, by the implied threat that, if you do defy them, you'll be forced to comply by the police. This isn't controversial. It's a rather obvious observation of how government works.

Only for people who don't want to follow the results of the courts.

One can be upset one lost in court, and still follow the results not just because one would be punished for not doing so.

Of course. But in that case you don't need a government court. Any third party arbiter would suffice. You turn to government when you need force. That's the whole point. Everyone wants to pretend it's something different (esp. when their people are wielding the force) but that's just delusion. When you pass a law, or a court issues a verdict, you're counting on the physical force of government to enforce it.

Only in the worst case scenario do you count on government force.

Sigh -- the point is that law is built on the threat of force. You can't pretend that a law is "just a regulation" and doesn't employ that force. Every single law on the books can end up with someone getting shot if they persist in defying it. That's why we shouldn't make something a matter of law unless we're actually willing to see someone die over it.

Let's not lose track of why we're debating this. We're asking ourselves if we should create new laws to control social media websites. Outside the glaringly obvious violation of the First Amendment, it's a question of whether controlling Facebook is worth employing coercive laws. I'd rather see it resolved voluntarily.

yes, i get your point that in the end, in the worst case scenario government devolves down to force.

But removing government from the equation does not remove the force, or the threat of force, it just decentralizes it.

 

[dblack]

But removing government from the equation does not remove the force, or the threat of force, it just decentralizes it.

I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify before I respond. This sounds like the progressive tact of equating economic power with government. Is that what you're going for?

 

[martybegan]

But removing government from the equation does not remove the force, or the threat of force, it just decentralizes it.

I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify before I respond. This sounds like the progressive tact of equating economic power with government. Is that what you're going for?

No, that the use of force will always be part of human interactions, it's just a question of who wields it.

 

[dblack]

But removing government from the equation does not remove the force, or the threat of force, it just decentralizes it.

I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify before I respond. This sounds like the progressive tact of equating economic power with government. Is that what you're going for?

No, that the use of force will always be part of human interactions, it's just a question of who wields it.

And how is that point relevant? Are you saying that if we don't pass laws to control social media, angry mobs will attack Facebook? Isn't it more likely they'd just stop using it?

 

[martybegan]

But removing government from the equation does not remove the force, or the threat of force, it just decentralizes it.

I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify before I respond. This sounds like the progressive tact of equating economic power with government. Is that what you're going for?

No, that the use of force will always be part of human interactions, it's just a question of who wields it.

And how is that point relevant? Are you saying that if we don't pass laws to control social media, angry mobs will attack Facebook? Isn't it more likely they'd just stop using it?

After 62 pages on the same thing, most posts devolve into the irrelevant.