Zone1 Do you believe in Free Speech

[martybegan]

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

Making up what?

Do we allow the phone company to refuse to send information between people due to the content?

 

[pknopp]

Making up what?

Do we allow the phone company to refuse to send information between people due to the content?

You can't legally send child porn across it.

 

[martybegan]

You can't legally send child porn across it.

That would be an illegal act on the part of the sender.

I am talking about LEGAL information. Can the phone company stop it because it's their wires, their switches, and their power?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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.

You want to show us the law on such a matter.

 

[martybegan]

You want to show us the law on such a matter.

The law has to be interpreted and/or updated to reflect modern technology and conditions.

If social media is the new digital commons, it has to be treated as such.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Marty,

 

[pknopp]

That would be an illegal act on the part of the sender.

I am talking about LEGAL information. Can the phone company stop it because it's their wires, their switches, and their power?

How many people have been suspended here for what they have said?

How many have had their replies deleted.

Perfectly legal.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

marty, marty, marty, your strawman burned up.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

marty, marty, marty, your strawman burned up.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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

Trolling?

 

[Captain Caveman]

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?

People should be responsible and take ownership for what they say. If they don't have the evidence to back their statement(s), then libel and slander laws should be there to make it easier to take someone to court.

In Europe it's called Freedom of Expression -

Article 10: Freedom of expression | Equality and Human Rights Commission

Freedom of expression gives you the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without interference, although you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.

www.equalityhumanrights.com

 

[martybegan]

How many people have been suspended here for what they have said?

How many have had their replies deleted.

Perfectly legal.

This board isn't a major platform from which many people get their information.

It also has far more defined moderation rules than things like twitter, yet allows far more breadth of thought than twittter previously did.

 

[martybegan]

Trolling?

Asking a serious question. You speak of "consequences" for certain viewpoints, yet you don't want to confirm you basically mean ruining anyone who doesn't think like you do.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Asking a serious question. You speak of "consequences" for certain viewpoints, yet you don't want to confirm you basically mean ruining anyone who doesn't think like you do.

I'm not a system of justice.

 

[surada]

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?

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?

Hillary conceded within 48 hours. She didn't encourage a mob to attack the Capitol to try and over turn the election or threaten the VP. She didn't call the Georgia secretary of state.

 

[surada]

Asking a serious question. You speak of "consequences" for certain viewpoints, yet you don't want to confirm you basically mean ruining anyone who doesn't think like you do.

Freedom of speech has limits. You can't incite violence or encourage crime.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not a system of justice.

No, you hide behind government power and by extension corporations doing government's (or one party's) bidding.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of speech has limits. You can't incite violence or encourage crime.

Saying " a man cannot be a woman" is inciting violence or encouraging crime?

So if Twitter was around during the Civil Rights Movement it should have been allowed to ban calls for counter sit ins or freedom marches?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

No, you hide behind government power and by extension corporations doing government's (or one party's) bidding.

If it were up to me, I'd ban social media altogether.

 

[martybegan]

If it were up to me, I'd ban social media altogether.

Why?

Sad that the means of mass communication are no longer the reserve of the gatekeepers and the rulers?