Jump to content

Free speech debate in America


Recommended Posts

I feel like this is a wide ranging topic that is in dire need for discussion in America. We are into it now because of Twitter, Parler, etc but it has been an issue for a long time. I thought we should have a thread dedicated to it as it will be an ongoing issue and not limited to recent events.

 

I’m not as worried about the legal implications of the 1st Amendment. That’s about whether the government can punish you based on what you say. But the issue at hand is what private corporations can do to control what you can say.

 

Where should these limits be? Twitter, Facebook, and all other private social media companies have a terms of service users have to agree to. Violating them means that their posts can be deleted and user accounts can be locked or banned. I assume we can all agree that threats of violence should qualify as a bannable offense. What else should a company like Facebook not allow? Should  clear propaganda be allowed? Political ads that are untrue? Junk Science? Conspiracy theories?

 

Is it OK to ban white supremacist groups? If they didn’t specifically say anything illegal, should a Neo-Nazi group be allowed to post on Twitter or Facebook? I was always taught that the KKK should have just as much legal right to peaceably assemble and march as any other group, but online rights with private entities aren’t the same.

 

And if you have a site like Parler or 8Chan that is seen as a radioactive mess, should hosting services or app stores be required to service them? Is it OK for Amazon to kick Parler off AWS and no one else being willing to serve them? It isn’t a violation of free speech because a company like Parlor has no right to free speech, but is it OK to for everyone to refuse service?

 

Is it OK for Twitter to kick Trump off if he isn’t explicitly promoting violence? Is it OK for them to tag his posts as untrue regarding the election results? Was it OK for them to not tag his posts for years that were also blatantly lies? How should Twitter have moderated Trump over the years and should that be any different from how they would moderate a random user’s postings?

 

Should there be a forcible change in the US news media? Should Fox News or OAN or the NY Post be able to peddle in right wing propaganda dressed up as news? If not, should “mainstream” media have any changes forced upon them? Is there any responsibility in the news media (or social media) to report the truth? Or is just a hands-off free for all and the consumer decides?

 

On a more “local” basis, what is the right way for mods to handle a forum like TitansReport. For the most part, anything goes other than threats of violence or racism. Forum owners can pretty much run it however they want, but what’s the best way to manage it in your opinion? And should it be any different than a big social media site like Facebook or Twitter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Liberals to Conservatives..."you can't discriminate against people."   Conservatives to Liberals..."you are discriminating against me by not allowing me to discriminate others"   T

It's not about free speech, literally no private company cares about free speech. It's always been about taking the temperature of the room and seeing what standards your company and services abide by

I posted in another topic somewhere.  

 

The easiest things (easy be relative), would be

 

1)  Regulations on social media to correct their algorithms so that it isn't just creating information bubbles for users.  I'm not exactly sure on the correct method for that, but something needs to be done.  If they can't survive on a business model with those regulations, well, bye.  

 

2)  Fairness doctrine being brought back, or some form of it.  

 

3) An investigation into disinformation, if not a new agency.  If the source is foreign, or if foreign funding is involved, I would think we would have some means of addressing it.  It's a tough one though, because who determines it's disinformation?  At the very least, some attached information that states this information is funded by "state actor".  

 

I think this is a reasonable start that can get traction.  

 

As for websites like Parlor (does the left have an equivalent?), that one is tough.  I'm not sure what type of regulation can exist, or even warranted, outside of condoning violence.  This may fall to intelligence threat levels.  I don't have an answer.  But private entities should be able to make a decision on whether they want to be a part or not, and/or determine what acceptable content on with platform.  

 

It's a very complicated subject. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, patsplat said:

Why must Amazon be associated with Parler?  Why should anyone be forced into business with communities that revel in obscenity, violence, and abuse?

It's quite simple.  There isn't a free speech debate.  There's an "entitled to white supremacy" debate.

/thread

Not remotely /thread...

 

It’s way bigger than just Parler and Amazon.

Edited by Starkiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Starkiller said:

Not remotely /thread...

 

It’s way bigger than just Parler and Amazon.


Speech isn't the only first amendment right.  Free association is also in there, and equally important.

Please come up with a legit reason for why Amazon must be forced to associate with Parler.  Why favor one private party over another?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting aside that these are two private companies and have nothing to do with Congress or Government...

Why does Parler's dubious right to "free speech" outweigh Amazon's quite common sense right to avoid associating with terrorists?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god the OP is absurdly twisted.  Quit making this complicated.
 

Yes, Twitter can ban Trump.  Yes, TitansGuru can ban you and I.  Yes, it is OK to ban white supremacist groups.  Yes, it is OK for Fox to pick who they have on TV.  Yes, it is OK for services to have terms of use.

What you are conflating is the right to an audience with the right to free speech.  You can say what ever you want, but the auditorium gets to pick who's on the stage.  Suck it up and grow up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, patsplat said:


Speech isn't the only first amendment right.  Free association is also in there, and equally important.

Please come up with a legit reason for why Amazon must be forced to associate with Parler.  Why favor one private party over another?

I didn’t say Amazon has to be associated with Parler. I’m fine with them getting the boot based on their content, personally.

 

But obviously this isn’t a universally agreed upon topic. Thus the debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, patsplat said:

Good god the OP is absurdly twisted.  Quit making this complicated.
 

Yes, Twitter can ban Trump.  Yes, TitansGuru can ban you and I.  Yes, it is OK to ban white supremacist groups.  Yes, it is OK for Fox to pick who they have on TV.  Yes, it is OK for services to have terms of use.

What you are conflating is the right to an audience with the right to free speech.  You can say what ever you want, but the auditorium gets to pick who's on the stage.  Suck it up and grow up.


I think he’s just bringing up issues that are prevalent.  It’s a conversation that needs to be had.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could also throw in lies and hoaxes during a pandemic. We could bring up “cancel culture”, from both sides. It’s a very broad and open ended topic. 
 

And there is a lot of grey area without clear right and wrong. Absolute freedom has been a disaster online. But locking it down like China is a bad extreme, too. So where is the middle ground that works?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

We could also throw in lies and hoaxes during a pandemic. We could bring up “cancel culture”, from both sides. It’s a very broad and open ended topic. 
 

And there is a lot of grey area without clear right and wrong. Absolute freedom has been a disaster online. But locking it down like China is a bad extreme, too. So where is the middle ground that works?


There is nothing wrong with cancel culture.  We need more cancel culture.  We should also be able to cancel platforms.  You should be able to export your profile from facebook, load it up elsewhere, and set your profile to permanent redirect.  You should own your data.

 

This still isn't the topic of the day though -- which is that terrorists should be erased from the internet, with prejudice and no regard.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no free speech debate in America.  This is what the Trumpists think of free speech.  If they don't agree, they physically attack the press.  This is a photo of equipment destroyed by the Capital mob.  It's only when they see consequences for their actions that they start talking about principles.  Nope.  They showed who they are.  GTFO.

1200x0.jpg

Edited by patsplat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...