Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[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.

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.

What who considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?

That decision should be made by the people and enforced by the people not the government. The American people have the power to force social media to control the spread of misinformation and lies.

So when "the people" can fully agree on what "dangerous misinformation" is maybe that can happen. Of course if people could agree on what dangerous misinformation is they would already know better than to follow it so I'm not sure there is a point. I think you're dreaming. Also not sure if this thread doesn't qualify as dangerous misinformation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What who considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?

Private social media decide, private citizens in the context of private society decide.

Government does not decide.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.

Actually not.

It was not the Framers’ intent that the press and private citizens be at liberty to say or print anything at all with impunity; private citizens could denounce, boycott, and condemn speech that private society considered to be inappropriate and dangerous.

It was Framer’ intent that government not make such determinations.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What who considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?

Private social media decide, private citizens in the context of private society decide.

Government does not decide.

So you'd rather big business/media decide. Not me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree, however, both goverment, private and public organizations can certainly apply pressure which can be just as effective as legislation.

Private, yes; government, no.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to private social media the makeup of their content.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to private social media who will or will not be allowed to participate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There have always been limits on free speech.

True, both as a matter of law and private society.

First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.

Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Commies

lol

 

[Correll]

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.

Do you believe that President Trump said that w.s. were "very fine people"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The point being, the founders wrote the constitution based on the world as it was then.

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that advances in technology do not mitigate the rights and protected liberties enshrined in the Constitution; radio, television, and the internet are all within the scope of the First Amendment.

 

[surada]

There have always been limits on free speech.

True, both as a matter of law and private society.

First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.

Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.

Thank you so much.. Do you suppose Trumpies don't know that?

 

[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.

Commies are all for censorship. Without censorship, commies can't exist. Every thread on this site that discusses censorship is packed with lefties defending their precious censorship.

Any time I see the word Commies I bypass the post.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

What you suggest is incredibly dangerous, but was predicted years ago. Hence, the term "Orwellian."

 

[Asclepias]

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

Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers.

As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate

Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.

The crux of problem is not the individual that creates the misinformation. With a system of communications that connects billions of people, most being anonymous, there is no way to stop that from occurring. The problem is the repeating and modifying of that information as it moves around the internet. Those that control social media have the power to limit the spread. They just need the incentive to do so.

Their algorithms are based on the incentive to make money. They know misinformation is more attractive to less intelligent people and they know the vast majority of Dump supporters are woefully ignorant. They are caught between their shareholders and doing what is right.

 

[Oddball]

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.

A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.


Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.

This is a lie - as ignorant as it is idiotic.

Neither FB nor the government are engaging in ‘prior restraint.’

Look up your sacred "case law", drive-by peckerhead.

prior restraint

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[EvMetro]

Any time I see the word Commies I bypass the post.

Indeed, commies tend to hide in darkness.

 

[Dr Grump]

You mean the lie that Biden won an honest election? Thought you liked that lie.

Not a lie.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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

Only in the mind of the ignorant.

 

[there4eyeM]

There are limits on free speech. They are called decorum, politeness, discernment...
Self imposed limits are the only tolerable ones. Civility should be the common denominator.

 

[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.

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.

A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.


Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.

You're not half paranoid about trump getting kicked of fb.