Jump to content

Free speech debate in America


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, patsplat said:


And you what do you know, notice how he still has a platform to complain on.

Pat, Starkiller isn't talking about freedom of speech. He said up front that he has no legal issues with how these extremist platforms have been dealt with. He's starting a debate about censorship, the molarity of censoring speech that is not violent but otherwise questionable, who gets to decide what is worthy of being censored, and can we trust their judgement. There is a nuanced conversation to be had for sure. Privileged insurrectionist tears have nothing to do with this.

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

4 hours ago, NashvilleNinja said:

 

Checks and balances are good. Bans and silences are not.

You say this and I agree but your side clearly doesn't believe in checks as balances and was literally trying to brute force their will through checks and balances by stopping the certification process. Why don't you have the same energy for them? Trump has had nothing but contempt for checks and balances that he couldn't bend to his will since day 1 and I don't remember this ever really being an issue for you? This is kind of what @patsplat is getting at in that conservatives are perfectly fine with being unfair to others but when they're on the receiving end it's the end of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Pat, Starkiller isn't talking about freedom of speech. He said up front that he has no legal issues with how these extremist platforms have been dealt with. He's starting a debate about censorship, the molarity of censoring speech that is not violent but otherwise questionable, who gets to decide what is worthy of being censored, and can we trust their judgement. There is a nuanced conversation to be had for sure. Privileged insurrectionist tears have nothing to do with this.

 

The facts of the news today raise questions about why speech wasn't censored earlier.

In 2019, after a mass shooting in El Paso TX, Cloudflare stopped hosting 8chan.  Why wasn't hosting child pornography or white supremacist domestic terrorist content enough for Cloudflare to drop them earlier?

 

Where is the evidence that this is a problem of censorship and prior restraint, rather than consequences?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Starkiller said:

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?

Free speech means the government can't stop your speech. Private organizations really has the right to set their own rules. The US doesn't really have strong hate speech laws that other countries have, so it's up to the platforms to police themselves, which they are terrible at, and gladly ignore people breaking their terms of service if said person has a lot of followers and thus bring them loads of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tgo said:

I think in response to the OP, it’s simple. Threats of violence and incitement should be removed from platforms, propaganda and conspiracy theories should be marked as such by the sites. 

Therein lies one of the issues SK brings up; who can morally determine what is a conspiracy theory/propaganda is? Personally, I think the underlying issue to all of discourse in America is trust. Not only do we not trust each other, we explicitly distrust each other and when that distrust is so deep facts become secondary.   Easier said than done but we need to create an impartial body whose determinations on what is factual everyone or at least most everyone can agree on. As long as we can't even agree on what the facts are there is no way to reconcile both sides and the less astute among us will continually be led astray. The problem is that I struggle to think of people that have that level of universal trust and the competence to suss everything out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mythos27 said:

Therein lies one of the issues SK brings up; who can morally determine what is a conspiracy theory/propaganda is? Personally, I think the underlying issue to all of discourse in America is trust. Not only do we not trust each other, we explicitly distrust each other and when that distrust is so deep facts become secondary.   Easier said than done but we need to create an impartial body whose determinations on what is factual everyone or at least most everyone can agree on. As long as we can't even agree on what the facts are there is no way to reconcile both sides and the less astute among us will continually be led astray. The problem is that I struggle to think of people that have that level of universal trust and the competence to suss everything out. 

 

It should be a highly educated bipartisan panel/system at these companies that determines it, but that would be up to the companies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tgo said:

 

It should be a highly educated bipartisan panel/system at these companies that determines it, but that would be up to the companies. 

Ideally yes but highly educated and even bi-partisan doesn't mean much to the average hyper-partisan person on the left or right (let's be honest mostly the right). Organizations like CNN etc do get shit wrong but otherwise adhere to pretty strict journalistic standards and clearly that is not enough to garner trust or at least not enough that a demagogue like Trump can't erode it. What we need is a source that already has established trust with the overwhelming majority of people akin to the trust men like Walter Cronkite had before news became big business. My fear is that this source does not exist...

Link to post
Share on other sites

FREE SPEECH....geezus....We are no longer smart enough to handle free speech. We have it but we can't handle it.

We have destroyed the middle class in this country and it has always been the middle class that supported not just the social safety net that Conservatives yammer about endlessly but basic services. We ended up cutting taxes on the wealthy as well and completed the loop. We have killed off the middle class and are not taxing the rich enough to make up the difference. When funding got short for Edudation did we fight for Education. NOPE. We cut key elements of what had been a well rounded education. The opposing view is that there is plenty of money in Education budgets. REALLY? Kindly look at what we no longer do in our schools and then tell me there is plenty of money in Education budgets. You can BUY a good education now but that is about it and even that education likely is no longer "well rounded".

 We are the last generation of Americans that could have expectations of a good education K through higher education without spending a fortune. We are probably the last generation that received a well rounded education at any cost. It is no accident that the middle class and its economic impact peaked in 1976. Take a look at that date. Its now 44 years in the rear view.

Education is not intended to fill your brain with facts. Facts are simply the tools of Education. Nobody gives a rats behind that you learned the Capitol of North Dakota. The Capitol of North Dakota was simply a tool used to teach you how to learn beyond structured education. The rest of education is intended to teach us how to use the logic centers of our brains. We all have them but unless they are trained we do not know how to use them and that is where we find ourselves right now.

We have too many citizens that do not know how to discern fact from lie and further, do not have trained logic centers between their ears. The result or one of them is that we have a very high percentage of the citizenry that substitutes belief for logic in places where belief has no business being. We end up spewing that "belief" based nonsense all over creation and treating it like fact or something that is logic based and its not. Belief is faith based and therefore closer to religion than it is to logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Oilertattoo said:

 

 

Yes, there will be some liberal policies implemented, but this isn't going to ever be a Socialist country.  We may have some Socialist policies implemented, but we already have some of those in place  and the fact conservatives won't admit to such is really mind boggling.

 

‘Keep your goddamn socialists hands off my Medicare!’

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tgo said:

 

It should be a highly educated bipartisan panel/system at these companies that determines it, but that would be up to the companies. 

 

It already is.  The actions of Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon are all in alignment with established 1st Amendment case law.

 

The radicals here are the "conservatives" making the nihilistic argument that everything is permitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Side story - I have another college friend from Pittsburgh.  Her high school friends back in PA had a recurring Aleister Crowley goth New Years party.  Goth attire, goth names, drinks, and later shenanigans.  "Everything is permitted" yadda yadda yadda.  She went one year.

 

There she stuck up a conversation with Horrificus.  He introduced himself "Hi I am Horrificus.  I work as a fry cook..."

 

After meeting Horrificus The Fry Cook she decided to bail on the orgy.

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...