Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Crepitus]

Facts are just opinions

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

Tell me a fact, I will wait

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]

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

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

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]

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...

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]

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]

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

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

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.

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

ever hear of a monopoly?

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.

Ever hear of USMB?

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

 

[Ringtone]

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

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

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.

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]

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.

A republican method of solving issues.

 

[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.

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.

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.