Do you believe that the Internet should be a free speech Platform?

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Before 2020 people like David Duke and Andrew Tate, Robert Spencer, and others were allowed to provide their messages. Often they were mocked, laughed at or disagreed with. Everything was fine. The world was a safer place. The economy was better. Fast forward to 2020 and political platforms like YouTube, Instagram and Twitter banned these types of figures under the guise of “hate speech.”

The Democrats and neocons will say well that’s a businesses decision. Of course they are intentionally trolling or they simply don’t know any better that these social media platforms play pivotal roles when it comes to the election. Just look at Taylor Swift another powerful figures using social media, to tell people to support abortion and get out and vote which is her right. So you could either support freedom or under some evil deranged or misinformed guy say “well it’s just a business decision Taylor Swift should be banned.”





And that’s the difference between an American patriot and Biden BLM supporter. The American patriot says let’s allow BLM to go on YouTube and say white people are born privileged. To say that the white man is evil. But the Biden BLM supporter will turn around and say no the business can do what they want, and they can even affect the outcome of elections by banning certain figures from their platforms.

It’s all the more interesting because here in 2023 We have a terrible economy, super high inflation under Joe Biden. Out of control illegal immigration and crime throughout the country. To think that Biden supporters and supporters of restrictions of free-speech will go along with that stuff while they are poor, using drugs all the time, obese, or severely underweight, is all the more interesting and astonishing really.

But things are perhaps being taken to a new level. With the idea of further encroachments of free speech in countries like England, Canada and America, where the proposals are to silence, fine and even imprison people who for example, engage in “vaccine disinformation.” in other words simply disagreeing with What a politician say. A clear cut infringement of free speech.

Biden BLM supporters may have already made up their minds along with the neoconservatives. After all they’re the same people who approves of totalitarian shut down of free speech on social media of conservatives in 2020 ….so why wouldn’t they say that somebody who engages in vaccine disinformation should be thrown in jail or fined $1-10 million dollars.


What will be the future of the Internet be in America. Will freedom prevail.???? Will the founding fathers prevail. How about the legacy of The men and women who fought in World War II for freedom…. I think that freedom will prevail and the bad guys will lose.

 

[shockedcanadian]

People with power don't want it diluted in the Free Market. It ensures humanity improves but doesn't help them. There are a number of police agents on this site who prefer censoring too if I were to guess, it has ruined this very forum IMO. Foreign governments, corporations, political parties, religious leaders etc all want to silence criticism. Civilization is best when able to express freely and ensure change. People have said the worst things to me, I've experienced the worst in life, I am still always open to debate. If not, what does that say about G-ds greatest creation, us? Unless we are protecting the vulnerable (kids especially), let men and women be free and let others debate with courage. It seems America are embracing their enemies tactics more and more each day, it will end in a miserable world.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Rambunctious]

If the internet is going to survive they must go 100% free speech... remember its only democrats that are trying to limit speech on the internet....

 

[Dekster]

The "internet" should be subject to the laws in the country in which the host company exists IMHO. Other countries can block the sites they don't like the policies of. As for the US, the web is only as good as the content people create and people be bat shit irrational crazy these days. Not the internet's fault. I blame a generation that allowed its progeny to become hooked on big pharma.

 

[The Duke]

Being as it was when I first started on it, absolutely!

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

People with power don't want it diluted in the Free Market It ensures numanity imorovs but doesn't help them. There.are a number of police agents on this site who prefer densoring too if I were to guess. Foreign governments, corporations, political parties, religious leaders etc. Civilization is best when able to express freely and ensure change. People have sad the worst things to me, I've experienced the worst in life, I am still alwas open to debate. If not, what does that say about G-ds greatest creation, us? Unless we are protecting the vulnerable (kids especially), let men and women be free and let others debate with courage.

You’re making good points. It’s all very interesting because I remember even back in 2017. We had all sorts of controversial people on the Internet on things like YouTube saying all sorts of things about Adolf Hitler and all sorts of figures. ..back then the world was a better place. It was a safer place The economy was much better.. Those controversial people on social media were often laughed at or disagreed with everything was fine.

It should be interesting to see where the future goes and how freedom of speech is affected.

 

[shockedcanadian]

You’re making good points. It’s all very interesting because I remember even back in 2017. We had all sorts of controversial people on the Internet on things like YouTube saying all sorts of things about Adolf Hitler and all sorts of figures. ..back then the world was a better place. It was a safer place The economy was much better.. Those controversial people on social media were often laughed at or disagreed with everything was fine.

It should be interesting to see where the future goes and how freedom of speech is affected.

Ultimately people will just waste their time watching videos or playing games and abandon social media other than to watch clips rather than debate and share opinions. I see far fewer interactions even on youtube and reddit of lste, people don't feel their voices are heard so they interact less. All of us suffer from linear viewpoints.

 

[BluesLegend]

The volume of Dem lies has me re-thinking free speech. Are we talking free speech or corrupted rigged free speech?

 

[MizMolly]

Not if freedom of speech is allowed to harm or defame others, especially with lies or unproven thoughts.

 

[MinTrut]

Before 2020 people like David Duke and Andrew Tate, Robert Spencer, and others were allowed to provide their messages. Often they were mocked, laughed at or disagreed with. Everything was fine. The world was a safer place. The economy was better. Fast forward to 2020 and political platforms like YouTube, Instagram and Twitter banned these types of figures under the guise of “hate speech.”

The Democrats and neocons will say well that’s a businesses decision. Of course they are intentionally trolling or they simply don’t know any better that these social media platforms play pivotal roles when it comes to the election. Just look at Taylor Swift another powerful figures using social media, to tell people to support abortion and get out and vote which is her right. So you could either support freedom or under some evil deranged or misinformed guy say “well it’s just a business decision Taylor Swift should be banned.”





And that’s the difference between an American patriot and Biden BLM supporter. The American patriot says let’s allow BLM to go on YouTube and say white people are born privileged. To say that the white man is evil. But the Biden BLM supporter will turn around and say no the business can do what they want, and they can even affect the outcome of elections by banning certain figures from their platforms.

It’s all the more interesting because here in 2023 We have a terrible economy, super high inflation under Joe Biden. Out of control illegal immigration and crime throughout the country. To think that Biden supporters and supporters of restrictions of free-speech will go along with that stuff while they are poor, using drugs all the time, obese, or severely underweight, is all the more interesting and astonishing really.

But things are perhaps being taken to a new level. With the idea of further encroachments of free speech in countries like England, Canada and America, where the proposals are to silence, fine and even imprison people who for example, engage in “vaccine disinformation.” in other words simply disagreeing with What a politician say. A clear cut infringement of free speech.

Biden BLM supporters may have already made up their minds along with the neoconservatives. After all they’re the same people who approves of totalitarian shut down of free speech on social media of conservatives in 2020 ….so why wouldn’t they say that somebody who engages in vaccine disinformation should be thrown in jail or fined $1-10 million dollars.


What will be the future of the Internet be in America. Will freedom prevail.???? Will the founding fathers prevail. How about the legacy of The men and women who fought in World War II for freedom…. I think that freedom will prevail and the bad guys will lose.

You REALLY need to edit your OPS down, but some good points.

And of course...

YES!​

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Not if freedom of speech is allowed to harm or defame others, especially with lies or unproven thoughts.

That’s not free speech. Making a physical threat against people is wrong.

If somebody says that Donald Trump or a black lives matter leader are terrible people. That is protected by free speech and a free society.

Providing the viewpoint that Adolf Hitler was a great man is protected under free-speech, according to the US Constitution and common sense…. People are then welcome to agree or disagree with such a view….and if you look at the Internet in 2015 or 2005, many people were saying that “Hitler was right” ..way way more people were disagreeing with it.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Not if freedom of speech is allowed to harm or defame others, especially with lies or unproven thoughts.

Meh. Who is the abiter of that though? That is the problem, even the definition of defame has changed. Now it is about hurt feelings or not swaying away from The company line, be it covid, spending, climate change, on and on.

 

[my2¢]

I believe rules are proper. Just as they are here.

 

[Billiejeens]

If the internet is going to survive they must go 100% free speech... remember its only democrats that are trying to limit speech on the internet....

They really have never gotten over losing their status as sole arbitrator of information.
Being the gatekeeper of information is a pretty good gig.

 

[Billiejeens]

I believe rules are proper. Just as they are here.

Nonresponsive.

 

[Crepitus]

Before 2020 people like David Duke and Andrew Tate, Robert Spencer, and others were allowed to provide their messages. Often they were mocked, laughed at or disagreed with. Everything was fine. The world was a safer place. The economy was better. Fast forward to 2020 and political platforms like YouTube, Instagram and Twitter banned these types of figures under the guise of “hate speech.”

The Democrats and neocons will say well that’s a businesses decision. Of course they are intentionally trolling or they simply don’t know any better that these social media platforms play pivotal roles when it comes to the election. Just look at Taylor Swift another powerful figures using social media, to tell people to support abortion and get out and vote which is her right. So you could either support freedom or under some evil deranged or misinformed guy say “well it’s just a business decision Taylor Swift should be banned.”





And that’s the difference between an American patriot and Biden BLM supporter. The American patriot says let’s allow BLM to go on YouTube and say white people are born privileged. To say that the white man is evil. But the Biden BLM supporter will turn around and say no the business can do what they want, and they can even affect the outcome of elections by banning certain figures from their platforms.

It’s all the more interesting because here in 2023 We have a terrible economy, super high inflation under Joe Biden. Out of control illegal immigration and crime throughout the country. To think that Biden supporters and supporters of restrictions of free-speech will go along with that stuff while they are poor, using drugs all the time, obese, or severely underweight, is all the more interesting and astonishing really.

But things are perhaps being taken to a new level. With the idea of further encroachments of free speech in countries like England, Canada and America, where the proposals are to silence, fine and even imprison people who for example, engage in “vaccine disinformation.” in other words simply disagreeing with What a politician say. A clear cut infringement of free speech.

Biden BLM supporters may have already made up their minds along with the neoconservatives. After all they’re the same people who approves of totalitarian shut down of free speech on social media of conservatives in 2020 ….so why wouldn’t they say that somebody who engages in vaccine disinformation should be thrown in jail or fined $1-10 million dollars.


What will be the future of the Internet be in America. Will freedom prevail.???? Will the founding fathers prevail. How about the legacy of The men and women who fought in World War II for freedom…. I think that freedom will prevail and the bad guys will lose.

Do you know what the first amendment is for?

 

[Nobody911]

Before 2020 people like David Duke and Andrew Tate, Robert Spencer, and others were allowed to provide their messages. Often they were mocked, laughed at or disagreed with. Everything was fine. The world was a safer place. The economy was better. Fast forward to 2020 and political platforms like YouTube, Instagram and Twitter banned these types of figures under the guise of “hate speech.”

The Democrats and neocons will say well that’s a businesses decision. Of course they are intentionally trolling or they simply don’t know any better that these social media platforms play pivotal roles when it comes to the election. Just look at Taylor Swift another powerful figures using social media, to tell people to support abortion and get out and vote which is her right. So you could either support freedom or under some evil deranged or misinformed guy say “well it’s just a business decision Taylor Swift should be banned.”





And that’s the difference between an American patriot and Biden BLM supporter. The American patriot says let’s allow BLM to go on YouTube and say white people are born privileged. To say that the white man is evil. But the Biden BLM supporter will turn around and say no the business can do what they want, and they can even affect the outcome of elections by banning certain figures from their platforms.

It’s all the more interesting because here in 2023 We have a terrible economy, super high inflation under Joe Biden. Out of control illegal immigration and crime throughout the country. To think that Biden supporters and supporters of restrictions of free-speech will go along with that stuff while they are poor, using drugs all the time, obese, or severely underweight, is all the more interesting and astonishing really.

But things are perhaps being taken to a new level. With the idea of further encroachments of free speech in countries like England, Canada and America, where the proposals are to silence, fine and even imprison people who for example, engage in “vaccine disinformation.” in other words simply disagreeing with What a politician say. A clear cut infringement of free speech.

Biden BLM supporters may have already made up their minds along with the neoconservatives. After all they’re the same people who approves of totalitarian shut down of free speech on social media of conservatives in 2020 ….so why wouldn’t they say that somebody who engages in vaccine disinformation should be thrown in jail or fined $1-10 million dollars.


What will be the future of the Internet be in America. Will freedom prevail.???? Will the founding fathers prevail. How about the legacy of The men and women who fought in World War II for freedom…. I think that freedom will prevail and the bad guys will lose.

The Supreme Court has recognized different categories of speech that receive varying levels of protection under the First Amendment. These categories include:

1. Pure Speech: This refers to verbal or written expression of ideas, opinions, and beliefs. Pure speech is considered the most protected form of speech and is given a high level of constitutional protection.

2. Symbolic Speech: This includes non-verbal forms of expression that convey a particular message or idea, such as wearing armbands, burning flags, or engaging in peaceful protests. Symbolic speech is also protected under the First Amendment, although it may receive slightly less protection than pure speech.

3. Commercial Speech: This refers to speech related to commercial activities, such as advertising products or services. While commercial speech is protected, it may be subject to certain restrictions, such as regulations related to false or misleading advertising.

4. Political Speech: Political speech, which includes speech related to political campaigns, elections, and public issues, is considered a core aspect of freedom of speech and receives strong protection under the First Amendment.

#### Limitations on Freedom of Speech:

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has recognized certain limitations and exceptions to this right. Some of these limitations include:

1. Incitement to Lawless Action: Speech that directly incites or encourages imminent lawless action, such as violence or illegal activities, is not protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court established the "imminent lawless action" standard in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to determine when speech crosses the line into incitement.

2. Obscenity: The Supreme Court has held that obscene materials, which are defined as materials that appeal to prurient interests and lack serious artistic, literary, scientific, or political value, are not protected by the First Amendment. The standard for obscenity was established in the case of Miller v. California (1973).

3. Defamation: Speech that involves false statements of fact that harm a person's reputation is not protected by the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has also recognized certain defenses and standards that need to be met for a statement to be considered defamatory, such as the requirement of "actual malice" for public figures.

4. Fighting Words: The Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech that are likely to provoke an immediate violent response or cause a breach of the peace, such as face-to-face personal insults or fighting words, are not protected by the First Amendment.

It is important to note that the interpretation of freedom of speech by the Supreme Court is subject to ongoing debate and evolution. New cases and changing societal norms can influence the Court's understanding and application of the First Amendment's protections.

Source :

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[my2¢]

Nonresponsive.

I don't think so. I believe the rules on this site and other social media sites make sense, don't you?

Limitation of freedom of speech has always existed but historically there is far more freedom today. For the overwhelmingly vast portion of our history that access to free speech was mainly controlled by newspaper, radio and television media. So, what is there to pout about?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Before 2020 people like David Duke and Andrew Tate, Robert Spencer, and others were allowed to provide their messages. Often they were mocked, laughed at or disagreed with. Everything was fine. The world was a safer place. The economy was better. Fast forward to 2020 and political platforms like YouTube, Instagram and Twitter banned these types of figures under the guise of “hate speech.”

The Democrats and neocons will say well that’s a businesses decision. Of course they are intentionally trolling or they simply don’t know any better that these social media platforms play pivotal roles when it comes to the election. Just look at Taylor Swift another powerful figures using social media, to tell people to support abortion and get out and vote which is her right. So you could either support freedom or under some evil deranged or misinformed guy say “well it’s just a business decision Taylor Swift should be banned.”





And that’s the difference between an American patriot and Biden BLM supporter. The American patriot says let’s allow BLM to go on YouTube and say white people are born privileged. To say that the white man is evil. But the Biden BLM supporter will turn around and say no the business can do what they want, and they can even affect the outcome of elections by banning certain figures from their platforms.

It’s all the more interesting because here in 2023 We have a terrible economy, super high inflation under Joe Biden. Out of control illegal immigration and crime throughout the country. To think that Biden supporters and supporters of restrictions of free-speech will go along with that stuff while they are poor, using drugs all the time, obese, or severely underweight, is all the more interesting and astonishing really.

But things are perhaps being taken to a new level. With the idea of further encroachments of free speech in countries like England, Canada and America, where the proposals are to silence, fine and even imprison people who for example, engage in “vaccine disinformation.” in other words simply disagreeing with What a politician say. A clear cut infringement of free speech.

Biden BLM supporters may have already made up their minds along with the neoconservatives. After all they’re the same people who approves of totalitarian shut down of free speech on social media of conservatives in 2020 ….so why wouldn’t they say that somebody who engages in vaccine disinformation should be thrown in jail or fined $1-10 million dollars.


What will be the future of the Internet be in America. Will freedom prevail.???? Will the founding fathers prevail. How about the legacy of The men and women who fought in World War II for freedom…. I think that freedom will prevail and the bad guys will lose.

"Free speech" means that you can say what you want without the GOVERNMENT stopping you.

Youtube is NOT the government. They have their platform, if they ban you, it doesn't stop you from saying what you want elsewhere.