CDZ Free Speech in the Social Media Era

[Natural Citizen]

I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Liberty should never be written or spoken absent the word responsibility. I agree with this.

But to say that if 'we' (I take issue with the collectivist principle of encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality and to view humans as members of groups rather than as Individuals, but that's another discussion) abdicate from responsibility (you said 'those responsibilities', whch leads to to believe that you don't really understand or actually reject the fundamental nature of that responsibility for the purpose of proposing more government) what responsibility, specifically, are you talking about?

 

[Coyote]

Freedom of the press is another issue that is abused and misused. The press has the freedom to publish words yet in turn they are not required to give you their private corporate activity to the public for use

Freedom of the press only works if we have an honest press and we clearly do not. The media largely is biased and they aren't even shy about that anymore, but when called out on it they play the victim and hide behind the First Amendment.

I disagree with this. Media has seldom been honest, the term yellow journalism was coinedaround 1900. I think what makes it work is having many different sources to utilize.

And another difference that has emerged. Previously print media tended to have a variety of views (mainstream views were much less narrowly defined) and even if there was a bias in some there might be a different bias in other articles. It forced the reader to at least encounter different perspectives. Now we migrate into our bubbles of one view only, on the internet. Our news feeds “choose” what they “think” we like...and human likes that.

 

[Donald H]

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc.

3. And treason, sedition, and inciting violence, with possibly more to add.

Especially when the leader of a country could be guilty of such crimes.

Can we think of some other examples that should be labelled as criminal behaviour? If America is going to do an overhaul on it's Constitution then it might just as well get it all right.

This is mostly a problem with a president having immunity from the law. America most likely already has sedition and treason covered with the death sentence for all the others.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I have yet to understand why there has been so little movement in regards to anti trust over the years with these companies. Follow the money.

One word.....ESTABLISHMENT, whether Democrat or RINO

it's also why Leftist controlled companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc etc etc have crushed any Right Wing competition.

The Government has been throwing obstacles to block Right Wing entities while bolstering Left Wing entities for about 90 years now.

 

[White 6]

Leadership, especially government leadership, absolutely must be held accountable for their actions and words and their results. If this cannot happen while in office because some bureaucrat wrote a memo, then it must happen after they leave office.
As for social media, as some on here have already stated or implied, they are private companies with the freedom to set the rules on their company owned platform. Personally, I do not think it is right, that people should be able to post, spew, and incite anonymously, while they hide behind it to avoid repercussions by the public at large, employers, church group or civic organizations, saying things they would never say in public, but that is just me.

 

[Moonglow]

I have yet to understand why there has been so little movement in regards to anti trust over the years with these companies. Follow the money.

One word.....ESTABLISHMENT, whether Democrat or RINO

it's also why Leftist controlled companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc etc etc have crushed any Right Wing competition.

The Government has been throwing obstacles to block Right Wing entities while bolstering Left Wing entities for about 90 years now.

Damn that Eisenhower!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

We have never had an honest press. If you ever have the time read what Thomas Jefferson said about the press and you will find it is no different today than it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. No where in the Constitution does it say that freedom of the press also includes the one condition that only the truth is published..

I didn't say the Constitution said they had to. I said the reasoning behind freedom of the press only works if they do.

The press is either free or it isnt. Pretty much every media outlet has a slant of one type or another and that is never going to change. The only real defence against that is having a population that is able to discern when they are being manipulated. Education is the only answer to that.

If you also look at some different aspects of an honest press. Libel laws should ensure that they do not publish outright lies but only rich folk can afford to sue for libel. That cant be right. Maybe that needs to be looked at.

 

[Coyote]

I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Liberty should never be written or spoken absent the word responsibility. I agree with this.

But to say that if 'we' (I take issue with the collectivist principle of encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality and to view humans as members of groups rather than as Individuals, but that's another discussion) abdicate from responsibility (you said 'those responsibilities', whch leads to to believe that you don't really understand or actually reject the fundamental nature of that responsibility for the purpose of proposing more government) what responsibility, specifically, are you talking about?

I am not sure I exactly understand your question but I will try to answer.

What is the fundamental responsibility inherent in free speech?
There are several, but mostly around the ability to recognize there are limits and respect them. Free speech does not give you to slander or falsely malign people or their reputations, to create a public safety hazard, to plagiarize, to promote riots or violence.

 

[Donald H]

I have yet to understand why there has been so little movement in regards to anti trust over the years with these companies. Follow the money.

One word.....ESTABLISHMENT, whether Democrat or RINO

it's also why Leftist controlled companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc etc etc have crushed any Right Wing competition.

Those companies have a responsibility to prevent anyone using their platform as a soapbox from which to break established laws. They obviously should have acted sooner and perhaps Trump's attack on his country's seat of government could have been prevented.

There is plenty of rightwing competition. OANN, Newsmax, Breitbart, to name a few. The rightwing needs to support those and then they will become as large and powerful as the mainstream.

The reason why they aren't popular is because they are not just right, they are extremist rightWING.

There's no appeal for the right in media in America anymore. Fox News is scorned for not following the Trump agenda and becoming extremist.

 

[Coyote]

.mn.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc.

3. And treason, sedition, and inciting violence, with possibly more to add.

Especially when the leader of a country could be guilty of such crimes.

Can we think of some other examples that should be labelled as criminal behaviour? If America is going to do an overhaul on it's Constitution then it might just as well get it all right.

This is mostly a problem with a president having immunity from the law. America most likely already has sedition and treason covered with the death sentence for all the others.

I disagree with that, what is happening is the culmination of a number of different things. The idea immunity really needs its own discussion.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Liberty should never be written or spoken absent the word responsibility. I agree with this.

But to say that if 'we' (I take issue with the collectivist principle of encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality and to view humans as members of groups rather than as Individuals, but that's another discussion) abdicate from responsibility (you said 'those responsibilities', whch leads to to believe that you don't really understand or actually reject the fundamental nature of that responsibility for the purpose of proposing more government) what responsibility, specifically, are you talking about?

I am not sure I exactly understand your question but I will try to answer.

What is the fundamental responsibility inherent in free speech?
There are several, but mostly around the ability to recognize there are limits and respect them. Free speech does not give you to slander or falsely malign people or their reputations, to create a public safety hazard, to plagiarize, to promote riots or violence.

It's like this. For every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty. For every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility. So that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty- Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams):

"If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

That's a snip from a great book on the topic, btw. I just happen to agree with the author's explanation, and it saves me some typing. Could go much deeper into it, but, respectfully speaking, I've no confidence that the thread will be fruitful in that regard. You dropped the race card right out of the gate. For starters. This thread will likely go the route of most others. The proper role of goverment is not to placate group claims. It is to protect Individual liberty.

Proceed...

 

[Coyote]

I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Liberty should never be written or spoken absent the word responsibility. I agree with this.

But to say that if 'we' (I take issue with the collectivist principle of encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality and to view humans as members of groups rather than as Individuals, but that's another discussion) abdicate from responsibility (you said 'those responsibilities', whch leads to to believe that you don't really understand or actually reject the fundamental nature of that responsibility for the purpose of proposing more government) what responsibility, specifically, are you talking about?

I am not sure I exactly understand your question but I will try to answer.

What is the fundamental responsibility inherent in free speech?
There are several, but mostly around the ability to recognize there are limits and respect them. Free speech does not give you to slander or falsely malign people or their reputations, to create a public safety hazard, to plagiarize, to promote riots or violence.

It's like this. For every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty. For every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility. So that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty- Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams):

"If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

That's a snip from a great book on the topic, btw. I just happen to agree with the author's explanation, and it saves me some typing. Could go much deeper into it, but, respectfully speaking, I've no confidence that the thread will be fruitful in that regard. You dropped the race card right out of the gate. For starters. This thrad will likely go the route of most others.

Proceed...

How did I drop the race card? By mentioning minorities? I think the fact that they now have a voice (as opposed to “shut up and suck it up”) is part of what is driving both the PC and anti PC pushback in free speech. You can’t really ignore that.

 

[Mac1958]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

While the individual companies have the right to apply restrictions, I'm sure not comfortable with what we're seeing. We need to keep freedom of expression as protected as we can.

The problem with the freedoms provided by the Constitution is that they assume a certain level of decency. Well, that just no longer applies to us. So now, we're seeing more and more abuses of liberty and freedom.

One thing we might consider doing -- and I have not thought this through yet -- is to allow these sites to remove the anonymity afforded to their users. I'd be curious to know how that would change behaviors.

 

[White 6]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

While the individual companies have the right to apply restrictions, I'm sure not comfortable with what we're seeing. We need to keep freedom of expression as protected as we can.

The problem with the freedoms provided by the Constitution is that they assume a certain level of decency. Well, that just no longer applies to us. So now, we're seeing more and more abuses of liberty and freedom.

One thing we might consider doing -- and I have not thought this through yet -- is to allow these sites to remove the anonymity afforded to their users. I'd be curious to know how that would change behaviors.

I agree. Verification to make sure not easy to fake being somebody else would be important if it was taken up. It would certainly restrain those that would incite for fun and profit to speak in a manor they would never take up in the aisle of a store or in front of a civic minded organization. It would take some of the fun out of posting, for many people but would force the internet by in large to be more like open in public society.

 

[Donald H]

.mn.
I disagree with that, what is happening is the culmination of a number of different things. The idea immunity really needs its own discussion.

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

Is this not all about how Trump has been denied the right to speak? If not then the president's immunity is off-topic as you suggest.

But if is about media outlets taking away Trump's rights then it is directly related to his ability to commit crimes against his country because he has immunity from the law.

Twitter, for example, can't claim that immunity and therefore it is obliged to not become the vehicle for Trump's high crimes of inciting violence, sedition, or treason against his country.

You always have the right to censor any discussion on the president's immunity!

 

[Coyote]

One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

While the individual companies have the right to apply restrictions, I'm sure not comfortable with what we're seeing. We need to keep freedom of expression as protected as we can.

The problem with the freedoms provided by the Constitution is that they assume a certain level of decency. Well, that just no longer applies to us. So now, we're seeing more and more abuses of liberty and freedom.

One thing we might consider doing -- and I have not thought this through yet -- is to allow these sites to remove the anonymity afforded to their users. I'd be curious to know how that would change behaviors.

That is so true! And that level of decency is what also provided the necessary push back.

I remember reading that finally put the brakes on McCarthy was when Joseph Welch, a lawyer representing tbe Army, told him “Have you no sense of decency?” Don’t think that would have any effect today.

Interesting thought on anonymity too.

 

[Donald H]

While the individual companies have the right to apply restrictions, I'm sure not comfortable with what we're seeing. We need to keep freedom of expression as protected as we can.

All Americans should be very uncomfortable with a media platform such as Twitter, allowing a president to use their platform to encourage violence, sedition, and treason against his country.

Countries that value the protection of their government would act quickly with either a bullet or a machete on the neck of the traitor.

America apparently holds a traitor immune from quick and sure remedies to bring justice.

 

[Coyote]

.mn.
I disagree with that, what is happening is the culmination of a number of different things. The idea immunity really needs its own discussion.

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

Is this not all about how Trump has been denied the right to speak? If not then the president's immunity is off-topic as you suggest.

But if is about media outlets taking away Trump's rights then it is directly related to his ability to commit crimes against his country because he has immunity from the law.

Twitter, for example, can't claim that immunity and therefore it is obliged to not become the vehicle for Trump's high crimes of inciting violence, sedition, or treason against his country.

You always have the right to censor any discussion on the president's immunity!

Ok...but I am sure I am following you.

Seems if we go down that rabbit hole we are pursuing a discussion on whether or not the president should ha prosecutorial immunity...

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder if they would of banned MLK, Jefferson Davis or George Washington?

 

[Donald H]

.mn.
I disagree with that, what is happening is the culmination of a number of different things. The idea immunity really needs its own discussion.

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?

Is this not all about how Trump has been denied the right to speak? If not then the president's immunity is off-topic as you suggest.

But if is about media outlets taking away Trump's rights then it is directly related to his ability to commit crimes against his country because he has immunity from the law.

Twitter, for example, can't claim that immunity and therefore it is obliged to not become the vehicle for Trump's high crimes of inciting violence, sedition, or treason against his country.

You always have the right to censor any discussion on the president's immunity!

Ok...but I am sure I am following you.

Seems if we go down that rabbit hole we are pursuing a discussion on whether or not the president should ha prosecutorial immunity...

No. We don't have to question that unless it's your pleasure to do so on this thread. I thought I make it very clear why the issue of immunity needed to be addressed, from the POV of Twitter's legal requirements. Twitter would obviously have the force of law behind them in all other cases.

No ordinary citizen could be permitted to incite violence, sedition, and treason on any media site. You could maybe consider your own responsibility if that happened here on this one.

Your president could post on this site with no fear of reprisal by the law, due to his immunity. That wouldn't negate the site's responsibility. And so out of the conversation on immunity, we can come full circle on why media outlets needed to censor Trump.

So now we can proceed to my other examples on how free speech must be limited.

Or if you aren't interested in discussing it then let's just leave it at that.