CDZ Free Speech in the Social Media Era

[Donald H]

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

Twitter? Who's they?
THEY would have banned any of those three if they had promoted violence, sedition, or treason against their country.

And all three would have wound up with a bullet between the horns. Or the black one would have been swinging from a tree.

 

[White 6]

The president deserves no special speech immunity on public media. He still has the microphone and camera at his disposal, his speech never really silenced.
The attention to privately operated social media is not about public speech, but the (falsely assumed) right for individuals to speak publicly, but undercover of darkness less they be held accountable by society. It has become the whispering campaigns of old, only mass market and with total accountability in any form. It can be, like a radio speaker in a movie theater, shouting fire!, fire!, but from an unknown, hidden source. Society regulates itself in public, but social media is not public media.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Twitter and the rest are just tools they are not inherent to the issue of humans and free speech when confronting the government since they are a private capitalistic endeavor.

you could say they same about newspapapers

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Government shouldn’t be involved at all – save for specific situations where First Amendment jurisprudence authorizes government to preempt or restrict speech where appropriate or justified, such as prohibiting the press from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.

Otherwise, in the context of private society, it was the original intent of the Framers that private citizens alone determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not – free from unwarranted interference by government or the courts.

Unfortunately, wrongheaded, nonsensical partisan contrivances such as ‘political correctness’ and ‘cancel culture’ are in conflict with the Framers’ original intent, advancing the lie that there are those who seek to ‘silence’ unpopular speech, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The people alone are best suited to evaluate private speech, to regulate private speech as they see fit, and to establish the standards and norms as to appropriate and inappropriate speech – thus safeguarding and preserving freedom of speech.

 

[White 6]

Twitter and the rest are just tools they are not inherent to the issue of humans and free speech when confronting the government since they are a private capitalistic endeavor.

you could say they same about newspapapers

Most newspapers, rarely accept letters to the editor or editorials for publication without signature and investigation, if necessary before posting to the public, as they have editorial and legal responsibility.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't like being censored on a Social media platform? LEAVE.

i have no issue with Facebook and Twitter censoring speech they do not agree with on THEIR PLATFORM.

Create your own and stop bitching !!!

The Right needs it's own Cellular platform as well. YOU (CONSERVATIVES) sat on your Laurels while the Left was busy boxing you into a corner.
TOUGH !!

I got tired of begging you conservatives over the years to create your own sites.
Your dogged loyalty to those Left wing sites is your fault....not theirs.

I agree with that but these giants effectively squash competition which is where I sympathize with conservatives.

There also remains the question of balancing free speech with public safety.

Disagree.

The internet is infinite, there are more than ample channels of communication online for all views and opinions to be expressed and consumed – including conservative views; to sympathize with conservatives is unwarranted, particularly given the fact that online platforms such as FB and Twitter are not seeking to ‘silence’ conservative voices.

Indeed, billions of people worldwide have neither a FB nor Twitter account – myself included – and have no issues accessing news, information, and entertainment via the internet; again: the internet is infinite.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't like being censored on a Social media platform? LEAVE.

i have no issue with Facebook and Twitter censoring speech they do not agree with on THEIR PLATFORM.

Create your own and stop bitching !!!

The Right needs it's own Cellular platform as well. YOU (CONSERVATIVES) sat on your Laurels while the Left was busy boxing you into a corner.
TOUGH !!

I got tired of begging you conservatives over the years to create your own sites.
Your dogged loyalty to those Left wing sites is your fault....not theirs.

I agree with that but these giants effectively squash competition which is where I sympathize with conservatives.

There also remains the question of balancing free speech with public safety.

“There also remains the question of balancing free speech with public safety.”

Or not.

As we’ve already established: the doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities – such as social media platforms.

Just as social media platforms are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit – where such editing in no manner ‘violates’ free speech – so too are they at liberty to manage their content to ensure public safety, where such management likewise does not jeopardize free speech.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Twitter and the rest are just tools they are not inherent to the issue of humans and free speech when confronting the government since they are a private capitalistic endeavor.

you could say they same about newspapapers

Most newspapers, rarely accept letters to the editor or editorials for publication without signature and investigation, if necessary before posting to the public, as they have editorial and legal responsibility.

investigation.....rigghhhttt

 

[Captain Caveman]

As each day passes, Communism gets one day closer.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

You speak in hypotheticals here and you know that.

No president has ever done any of what you claim.

 

[alpine]

if we cant agree on the fact that; "something that cant be proven in a courtroom, cant be proven", then i dont know what we can...

based on this fact, there is no election fraud, because there is no proof to it...

based on that, any source claiming an election fraud is fabricated fake news...

fascist agitators use these fabricated lies to infect normal human beings and turn them into zombies we have seen invading capitol building to murder democratically elected law makers and end democracy...

democratic institutions have every right to protect democracy by denying the platform to these infection sources...

not denying these sources the platform to spread under the "freedom of speech" is counter to "freedom of speech"... because it is counter to "democracy" itself... which "freedom of speech" is an extension of...

one shall remember what "democracy" means to fascist ideology; a train that takes you to your destination...

trump didnt need "democracy" once he gained power through "democracy"...
hence why he tried to end it...

 

[Coyote]

hnm

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.

Those are examp,es of RW media, but I am thinking social media like Twitter and Facebook who control a lions share.

 

[Coyote]

As each day passes, Communism gets one day closer.

No. Not communism. That a passé and failed ideology being resurrected because some folks need a bogeyman.

 

[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...

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.

I am Iterested in hearing your examples.

The President could post here, with impunity, because of tbe anonymous nature of message boards, not his position.

 

[HenryBHough]

Remember, left wing sites can ban conservatives and conservative sites are free to ban liberals, progressives, snowflakes, socialists and outright communists who then have no legitimate grounds to complain. Though they will. After all, they're ALL "victims". There is; there never was "freedom of speech" requirements for private entities. Only for government. The trick will be keep it that way.

 

[sartre play]

Its really kind of simple, don't believe everything you see read or hear, Why take as fact the view point that some stranger posts on face book? IF its medical check with experts in the field your interested in, why ask a foot dr about brain surgery, check & see if its a fact or some ones opinion. No one knows everything.

 

[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?

The entire basis of free speech is accepting the right of those to express ideas you do not like. Social media is squashing speech they do not like. It is totalitarian and deeply anti American.

Totally agree.

BUT...social media is also a privately owned product.

How do you reconcile that?

And where, if at all, do you draw any lines?

The left is terrified of Trump. That is what this is about. They want to silence him and his supporters. They are too stupid to realize that only makes the situation worse.

With all due respect, I think you don’t really see it, at least my perspective as a leftist.

We aren’t terrified of Trump. We are terrified of what he is allowed/enabled to get away with, the way it becomes normalized and rationalizes to the point where an attempted violent overthrow is seen as justified.

I have been reading articles about some of the people involved, and a recurrent theme is a deeply held belief in QAnon...and, I some cases like Ashley Babbit, a deeply troubled personal life. It is a belief that doesn’t just dislike the opposing ideology, but demonizes the people into reservoirs of evil that must be not only defeated but anhilated. That, frankly is frightening.

The difference between someone like Trump and someone like you or me, is his words carry ENORMOUS weight. He doesn’t ever speak as Donald Trump, but as the POTUS (as does any president). And as long president, he can speak as a private citizen because he isn’t.

I do not like a lot of Anifa's speech or BLM for that matter, but I would never advocate attempting to silence them.

I agree, and I feel similar for like Westboro Baptist’s, various independent RW militias, Proud Boys even Nazis. But what happens if tbey are actively planning activities that lead to insurrection? Or, like the plan to kidnap political officials? Left or Right?

Do privately owned entities have the right to set limits? Can they be held liable? Do they have a social responsibility?

When it comes to what the government can and can’t do it is much more clear imo, with free speech being affirmed.

But the hard Left is Fascist. It has always been Fascist. There is no hard Left in history that did not attempt to squash free speech. They do this because they know their ideas cannot survive the light of day.

The hard right is no different.

 

[Coyote]

if we cant agree on the fact that; "something that cant be proven in a courtroom, cant be proven", then i dont know what we can...

This can’t be emphasized enough.

 

[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?

Government shouldn’t be involved at all – save for specific situations where First Amendment jurisprudence authorizes government to preempt or restrict speech where appropriate or justified, such as prohibiting the press from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.

Otherwise, in the context of private society, it was the original intent of the Framers that private citizens alone determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not – free from unwarranted interference by government or the courts.

Unfortunately, wrongheaded, nonsensical partisan contrivances such as ‘political correctness’ and ‘cancel culture’ are in conflict with the Framers’ original intent, advancing the lie that there are those who seek to ‘silence’ unpopular speech, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The people alone are best suited to evaluate private speech, to regulate private speech as they see fit, and to establish the standards and norms as to appropriate and inappropriate speech – thus safeguarding and preserving freedom of speech.

It seems to me that those movements try and squash free speech...right?