Zone1 Do you believe in Free Speech

[Grau]

The very one’s who say they support free speech are ones criminalize free speech when it comes to teachers, state employees and even private businesses.

While many of the previous comments have been about Trump or Biden, I don't think that enough people realize how extreme enemies of free speech have become.

As a very strong supporter of free speech, I read about a frightening incident that exemplifies exactly what you just wrote about ".....teachers, state employees and even private businesses".

A very unfortunate Florida school principal was fired not just once but two times for writing an E-mail to a Parent that said: he: “...can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee,” (1)

Principal Latson didn't hurl racial slurs, humiliate someone in public or engage in libel or slander.
He had no idea to what type of extremist he was writing.

During his extensive series of trials, hearings and meetings he clarified that he was not a "Holocaust denier" and had never been one but his "crime" was too severe for any atonement.

I don't see how any honest supporter of free speech could either support or condone the scandalous treatment that former principal Latson received.

Finally, history has shown us over and over again that Rights are seldom lost overnight but incrementally, bit by bit.

I look forward to reading other responses.

Thanks,

​

​

​

(1). "Florida principal fired for second time for refusing to call Holocaust a ‘factual’ event"​

Florida principal fired for second time for refusing to call Holocaust a ‘factual’ event

A Florida principal was fired for a second time after refusing to acknowledge the Holocaust existed. William Latson of Spanish River High in Boca Raton, Florida was officially terminated on Tuesday from his administrative job in the school district after the school board voted to fire him as...

www.yahoo.com

 

[BULLDOG]

And all Trump has been doing is asking questions, that's all! Just asking a question here and there!

And the cops showed up and dragged him away for that! This is Nazi Germany, I tell you!

Trump isn't being charged with asking questions. You're big on doing your own research. You should do your own research on what he is being charged with.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump isn't being charged with asking questions. You're big on doing your own research. You should do your own research on what he is being charged with.

Yes, that was my point.

 

[Curried Goats]

What a fail of a thread. Every time a Republican opens their mouth they make it clear that they don't understand what their free speech rights are....

 

[peacefan]

This is a question mainly for so-called liberals.


Do you support free speech, meaning the government has no right to infringe on it, to censor you, or punish you for exercising your free speech rights? Or do you support censorship? Also, do you believe corporations should have no right to censor free speech, or should they be doing that? (This is separate from First Amendment, it is just the idea of free speech.)



For example: If someone says an election is stolen, would you defend the right of that person to say it? Or do you believe that person should be silenced, either by the government or a corporation?

Is It okay for it to be labeled “misinformation“ or to be banned entirely? Should the person even be allowed to say it?

Of Course then we get into who is actually labeling something “misinformation”, or making the decision to delete/ban/block such remarks. That is of course censorship. You cannot claim to support “free speech”, and support these things. So who gets to make the decision of what is misinformation or not? Must be someone wise. Perhaps we can call that person an “Oracle of Truth” or something.


.



.



.

For example, in 2016 Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen. That President Trump was “illegitimate“. That he only won because of “Russia collusion”.

Did she have the right to say these things? Should she have been banned off Twitter? Was her saying these things ”misinformation?” Was it a “threat to democracy?” Should she had been arrested for saying such things?

I don’t recall anyone on the right saying she should be banned off Twitter. No one demanded social media and news agencies call the claims “misinformation” or to delete them.. Instead, Republicans just laughed it off. It didn’t piss us off in the least, it was just pathetic. They ridiculed her for it.


Now look at how Dems react to President Trump saying an election was rigged. Suddenly this is called “misinformation”, and of course “a threat to democracy”. They fully support censorship of Donald Trump and even just random people on the internet. Now they have arrested him for practicing free speech.

How can one claim they support Free Speech if they support censorship?

you ask a bit too many questions in one post, but i'll try to answer them anyways..

i support free speech with limitations, like no calls for violence or hatred.
i support censorship of misinformation, although i'd want the process for something to be labelled misinformation to be transparent and executed by Judges and their clercks.

i can support even liars who claim an election was stolen (as i believe Trump was lying about that), but at the same time i support his critics and especially the legal system that is to provide judgement in the matter.

the Hillary Clinton case went smooth; she got her say, Trump got his say, Trump gained Office, and we can that let be the end of it, can't we?
the public should be ready for life long arguments. only those who do not live in the past can live without the extra worries that the past can bring to them.

 

[sparky]

I look forward to reading other responses.

~S~

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Do you support free speech, meaning the government has no right to infringe on it, to censor you, or punish you for exercising your free speech rights? Or do you support censorship?

Both. You can say what you want under constitutional right, but that doesn't give individuals carte blanche to avoid accountability for the content of said speech. Not all speech is precious. Not all speech has value. You can't call it 'liberties' and 'freedom' when the 'rights' guaranteed by our constitution, a written charter of our government, can quite easily be stripped from an individual by the very same government through a 'due process' in a court of law.

Nothing's changed. It still works that way.

People these days have digital bullhorns (social media) and populism allows them to feel entitled to say hateful, incorrect things and tell people it's gospel. Unfortunately, all of it is privately owned, so this isn't a 1st amendment issue in the first place.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

His orangeness has all the free speech rights we do, except he cannot tell lies.

 

[pknopp]

A private platform denying just anything on their platform is also a form of free speech.

The mistake is in believing just because a private platform disallows what you say, your free speech rights have been violated. They have not.

Stating something untrue that does actual harm to another is also not an example of protected free speech.

You can say "I do not like product A because they have too much sugar in their product for my taste".

You do not have the right to say "I do not like product A because they use dead puppies in their recipe" when that is not true.

Until we have this topic again in a few weeks..............................................

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A private platform denying just anything on their platform is also a form of free speech.

The mistake is in believing just because a private platform disallows what you say, your free speech rights have been violated. They have not.

Stating something untrue that does actual harm to another is also not an example of protected free speech.

You can say "I do not like product A because they have too much sugar in their product for my taste".

You do not have the right to say "I do not like product A because they use dead puppies in their recipe" when that is not true.

Until we have this topic again in a few weeks..............................................

When the government is colluding with various platforms to restrict free speech, that IS a violation of free speech.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What collusion?

 

[martybegan]

A private platform denying just anything on their platform is also a form of free speech.

The mistake is in believing just because a private platform disallows what you say, your free speech rights have been violated. They have not.

Stating something untrue that does actual harm to another is also not an example of protected free speech.

You can say "I do not like product A because they have too much sugar in their product for my taste".

You do not have the right to say "I do not like product A because they use dead puppies in their recipe" when that is not true.

Until we have this topic again in a few weeks..............................................

Not when the platform claims the content of the speech isn't theirs, and they are protected legally from any consequences of that speech.

 

[martybegan]

Both. You can say what you want under constitutional right, but that doesn't give individuals carte blanche to avoid accountability for the content of said speech. Not all speech is precious. Not all speech has value. You can't call it 'liberties' and 'freedom' when the 'rights' guaranteed by our constitution, a written charter of our government, can quite easily be stripped from an individual by the very same government through a 'due process' in a court of law.

Nothing's changed. It still works that way.

People these days have digital bullhorns (social media) and populism allows them to feel entitled to say hateful, incorrect things and tell people it's gospel. Unfortunately, all of it is privately owned, so this isn't a 1st amendment issue in the first place.

So you want all trump supporters fired from their jobs, denied bank accounts, and basically ostracized from society?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are there any true "Liberals" left in America?

Few and far between, Mike. Few and far between...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What collusion?

What planet are you living on, sweetie?

 

[Mindful]

When the government is colluding with various platforms to restrict free speech, that IS a violation of free speech.

 

[pknopp]

When the government is colluding with various platforms to restrict free speech, that IS a violation of free speech.

It could be.

 

[pknopp]

Not when the platform claims the content of the speech isn't theirs, and they are protected legally from any consequences of that speech.

Of course it still is. They can allow or disallow whatever they wish.

 

[martybegan]

Of course it still is. They can allow or disallow whatever they wish.

Then they have to own it as their own speech.

When you claim to be an open discussion platform, you can't pick and choose, especially if the content doesn't make you liable.

 

[pknopp]

Then they have to own it as their own speech.

When you claim to be an open discussion platform, you can't pick and choose, especially if the content doesn't make you liable.

Make stuff up all you want.....it changes nothing.