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

[martybegan]

Why is it the partisans cannot grasp that free speech is a function of the Govt, not of private companies.

Why can't you grasp that the OP is talking about the general inability of progressives to even tolerate opposing viewpoints?

Yeah, and it is just the progressives...please. The idiots on both ends of the spectrum are basically identical.

I disagree. You don't see rightist groups stopping leftist speakers, you don't see progressive videos being taken down in the same way as conservative/libertarian ones.

I think most progressive ideas are idiotic, but I have no desire to stop people from spewing them out if they so choose.

Progressives have been shown to be far less accommodating of ideas they don't like.

IMHO? Righties will talk shit about the opposition. The left will silence them.

We have a "rightie" president that has openly spoken of shutting down a news network he does not like.

Yes, he "talked" about it. I haven't seen any action.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The crazy Left Wingers can't survive in a free society.
That is why they are afraid of Freedom of Speech.
That is why they are afraid of a Free Press.
That is why Obama weaponized the DOJ and the FBI.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why can't you grasp that the OP is talking about the general inability of progressives to even tolerate opposing viewpoints?

Yeah, and it is just the progressives...please. The idiots on both ends of the spectrum are basically identical.

I disagree. You don't see rightist groups stopping leftist speakers, you don't see progressive videos being taken down in the same way as conservative/libertarian ones.

I think most progressive ideas are idiotic, but I have no desire to stop people from spewing them out if they so choose.

Progressives have been shown to be far less accommodating of ideas they don't like.

IMHO? Righties will talk shit about the opposition. The left will silence them.

We have a "rightie" president that has openly spoken of shutting down a news network he does not like.

Yes, he "talked" about it. I haven't seen any action.

But you have no problem with the President of the US talking about such things?

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

Perhaps what is needed is for some groups to form a few conservative versions of Facebook.

 

[dblack]

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

This is always the excuse for government encroachment on free speech. Liberals are quite familiar with it as a tactic. Conservatives are learning. Libertarians have no excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a realistic view of what platforms like twitter and facebook have become.

And I'm small "l" libertarian, not "big L" so I am not opposed to government oversight, especially when said oversight is to enforce something like first amendment protections.

Is there such a thing as a "vanishing L libertarian"?

This IS a first amendment issue - but not like you think. Like so many of our protected liberties, the First, is being inverted into its opposite. It's the same dynamic as the "equal rights" movement. We are shifting away from conception of rights as protection from government encroachment, and toward the idea that they are an obligation for government to step in on our behalf if we feel we aren't being properly respected by others.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Perhaps what is needed is for some groups to form a few conservative versions of Facebook.

I have found Facebook to be highly conservative, but then again 80% of my FaceBook friends lean right so I get all sorts of conservative post in my feed.

 

[TNHarley]

Yeah, and it is just the progressives...please. The idiots on both ends of the spectrum are basically identical.

I disagree. You don't see rightist groups stopping leftist speakers, you don't see progressive videos being taken down in the same way as conservative/libertarian ones.

I think most progressive ideas are idiotic, but I have no desire to stop people from spewing them out if they so choose.

Progressives have been shown to be far less accommodating of ideas they don't like.

IMHO? Righties will talk shit about the opposition. The left will silence them.

We have a "rightie" president that has openly spoken of shutting down a news network he does not like.

I dont think trump is a "righty" at all
Have you got a link for that? I havent heard about that

I agree with you actually about Trump not being a rightie, but he was put into office by them.

Trump threatens to target licenses of 'NBC and the Networks' after nuclear arsenal report

Well, i can see how the argument came about honestly... But outlets losing licenses for lack of integrity isnt something new. In fact, many licenses have been lost for political affiliation, much less completely fabricating stories like some news outlets have done.
For a president to call for it? Pathetic. I have no problem with him speaking ill fo them, though. Frankly, they deserve it.
If we went after journalistic integrity, we wouldnt have many left. Not sure if thats a bad thing though LOL

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, and it is just the progressives...please. The idiots on both ends of the spectrum are basically identical.

I disagree. You don't see rightist groups stopping leftist speakers, you don't see progressive videos being taken down in the same way as conservative/libertarian ones.

I think most progressive ideas are idiotic, but I have no desire to stop people from spewing them out if they so choose.

Progressives have been shown to be far less accommodating of ideas they don't like.

IMHO? Righties will talk shit about the opposition. The left will silence them.

We have a "rightie" president that has openly spoken of shutting down a news network he does not like.

Yes, he "talked" about it. I haven't seen any action.

But you have no problem with the President of the US talking about such things?

This President? Please, half the stuff coming out of his mouth is blowhard fluff, either intentional to set off his opponents, unintentional because he IS a blowhard, or a combination of the two.

Get back to me when he starts actually trying to implement things like this.

It's just like the trade Tariffs, everyone threw a fit when he just SAID he was going to do it, and now all of a sudden China feels like talking about things.

 

[SeaGal]

I'm fine with calling them out for being closed-minded, and quite illiberal. But I think it's dangerous to conflate PC censorship, done by private citizens and business, as a violation of free speech. And not just as a technical legal matter. A media outlet making decisions about what it will, and won't, publish IS free speech. It's just free speech you disagree with.

Not entirely.
Two issues -
1. Does a business have the right to 'refuse' service to anyone for any reason? As recent events have shown...no, apparently they don't.
2. Facebook is a social media financial giant run by a very wealthy and politically influential man who pronounced...

Late Friday, Trump supporters Diamond and Silk said that after being in ongoing communications with Facebook, the social media site told the duo the reason their material no longer reaches the people who liked their page is because the company believes their content and brand are “dangerous to the community.”

The discussion does not question Facebook's right to censor, it's whether or not they are right to do so - not withstanding setting themselves up as judge and jury in proclaiming two outspoken black conservative women who do not even use profanity as 'dangerous to the community'.

That said, the anger of the culture wars is fueling fascist yearnings on both sides. It's a real danger.

Yes, that is a danger - fascists lean heavily toward censorship under the guise of what's 'good for the community'. That includes stifling or outright banning disagreeable speech, demonizing whole segments of society (the deplorables), and blaming them for all the ills of society....throwing out perjoratives like racist, bigot, mysognist, homophobe, islamaphobe, etc...labeling them a danger to society. Tyrants could never retain power without the backing of influential private citizens and the media.

It's one thing when groups of folks gather together in the town square and accuse one another of being a danger to the community - it's wholly another when public officials and influential individuals do so from the bully pulpit...and in todays world that kind of talk comes primarily from the left.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

This is always the excuse for government encroachment on free speech. Liberals are quite familiar with it as a tactic. Conservatives are learning. Libertarians have no excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a realistic view of what platforms like twitter and facebook have become.

And I'm small "l" libertarian, not "big L" so I am not opposed to government oversight, especially when said oversight is to enforce something like first amendment protections.

Is there such a thing as a "vanishing L libertarian"?

This IS a first amendment issue - but not like you think. Like so many of our protected liberties, the First, is being inverted into its opposite. It's the same dynamic as the "equal rights" movement. We are shifting away from conception of rights as protection from government encroachment, and toward the idea that they are an obligation for government to step in on our behalf if we feel we aren't being properly respected by others.

Things like facebook and twitter are unique situations that the framers never imagined (unlike modern firearms, which they probably could imagine). We have created digital commons. These commons should be required to be content neutral just like any other common area involving speech.

Hell if I were facebook and twitter, I would love to be covered by the 1st, as then they couldn't be blamed for the content on the platforms they don't like, or the SJW's don't like.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I disagree. You don't see rightist groups stopping leftist speakers, you don't see progressive videos being taken down in the same way as conservative/libertarian ones.

I think most progressive ideas are idiotic, but I have no desire to stop people from spewing them out if they so choose.

Progressives have been shown to be far less accommodating of ideas they don't like.

IMHO? Righties will talk shit about the opposition. The left will silence them.

We have a "rightie" president that has openly spoken of shutting down a news network he does not like.

Yes, he "talked" about it. I haven't seen any action.

But you have no problem with the President of the US talking about such things?

This President? Please, half the stuff coming out of his mouth is blowhard fluff, either intentional to set off his opponents, unintentional because he IS a blowhard, or a combination of the two.

Get back to me when he starts actually trying to implement things like this.

It's just like the trade Tariffs, everyone threw a fit when he just SAID he was going to do it, and now all of a sudden China feels like talking about things.

I do not think giving someone a free pass just because they are a blowhard is a good path to go down,

 

[martybegan]

IMHO? Righties will talk shit about the opposition. The left will silence them.

We have a "rightie" president that has openly spoken of shutting down a news network he does not like.

Yes, he "talked" about it. I haven't seen any action.

But you have no problem with the President of the US talking about such things?

This President? Please, half the stuff coming out of his mouth is blowhard fluff, either intentional to set off his opponents, unintentional because he IS a blowhard, or a combination of the two.

Get back to me when he starts actually trying to implement things like this.

It's just like the trade Tariffs, everyone threw a fit when he just SAID he was going to do it, and now all of a sudden China feels like talking about things.

I do not think giving someone a free pass just because they are a blowhard is a good path to go down,

Not a free pass, but a pause to wait until some actual action is initiated.

 

[mdk]

These companies understand one thing: money. Stop using their free services and they will change their business practices accordingly. You have no more a right to post on Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter than I have the right to force a baker to make me a cake for my faggy wedding.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

This is always the excuse for government encroachment on free speech. Liberals are quite familiar with it as a tactic. Conservatives are learning. Libertarians have no excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a realistic view of what platforms like twitter and facebook have become.

And I'm small "l" libertarian, not "big L" so I am not opposed to government oversight, especially when said oversight is to enforce something like first amendment protections.

Is there such a thing as a "vanishing L libertarian"?

This IS a first amendment issue - but not like you think. Like so many of our protected liberties, the First, is being inverted into its opposite. It's the same dynamic as the "equal rights" movement. We are shifting away from conception of rights as protection from government encroachment, and toward the idea that they are an obligation for government to step in on our behalf if we feel we aren't being properly respected by others.

Things like facebook and twitter are unique situations that the framers never imagined (unlike modern firearms, which they probably could imagine). We have created digital commons. These commons should be required to be content neutral just like any other common area involving speech.

Hell if I were facebook and twitter, I would love to be covered by the 1st, as then they couldn't be blamed for the content on the platforms they don't like, or the SJW's don't like.

Just how do you make something like Facebook "content neutral"? Where does it stop? are boards like this next? Should the Govt make sure no fake news gets posted on this forum?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We have a "rightie" president that has openly spoken of shutting down a news network he does not like.

Yes, he "talked" about it. I haven't seen any action.

But you have no problem with the President of the US talking about such things?

This President? Please, half the stuff coming out of his mouth is blowhard fluff, either intentional to set off his opponents, unintentional because he IS a blowhard, or a combination of the two.

Get back to me when he starts actually trying to implement things like this.

It's just like the trade Tariffs, everyone threw a fit when he just SAID he was going to do it, and now all of a sudden China feels like talking about things.

I do not think giving someone a free pass just because they are a blowhard is a good path to go down,

Not a free pass, but a pause to wait until some actual action is initiated.

Very often the threat of such a thing is enough to squelch free speech...as you noted his words seem to bring about actions by others.

 

[Pop23]

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.

"I has a rite to discriminate against y'all, but y'all no has a rite to discriminate against me."

Gotta love it when a gay attacks In a racist manner.

You just can’t make this shit up folks!

 

[Seawytch]

So Libery University is a bastion of free speech, right contards?

Why Liberty University Kicked an Anti-Trump Christian Author Off Campus

 

[dblack]

"I has a rite to discriminate against y'all, but y'all no has a rite to discriminate against me."

Gotta love it when a gay attacks In a racist manner.

You just can’t make this shit up folks!

Racist?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Who?

 

[martybegan]

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

This is always the excuse for government encroachment on free speech. Liberals are quite familiar with it as a tactic. Conservatives are learning. Libertarians have no excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a realistic view of what platforms like twitter and facebook have become.

And I'm small "l" libertarian, not "big L" so I am not opposed to government oversight, especially when said oversight is to enforce something like first amendment protections.

Is there such a thing as a "vanishing L libertarian"?

This IS a first amendment issue - but not like you think. Like so many of our protected liberties, the First, is being inverted into its opposite. It's the same dynamic as the "equal rights" movement. We are shifting away from conception of rights as protection from government encroachment, and toward the idea that they are an obligation for government to step in on our behalf if we feel we aren't being properly respected by others.

Things like facebook and twitter are unique situations that the framers never imagined (unlike modern firearms, which they probably could imagine). We have created digital commons. These commons should be required to be content neutral just like any other common area involving speech.

Hell if I were facebook and twitter, I would love to be covered by the 1st, as then they couldn't be blamed for the content on the platforms they don't like, or the SJW's don't like.

Just how do you make something like Facebook "content neutral"? Where does it stop? are boards like this next? Should the Govt make sure no fake news gets posted on this forum?

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.