How Do You Define Censorship?

[Crepitus]

Why can't I lie repeatedly?

You already do, so what are you worries about?

 

[Crepitus]

Social media

Then the first amendment doesn't really apply.

 

[Crepitus]

Social media




I'm not going to say any more because Coyote already said it for me. Just stop lying is all I'll say to this.



Excuse me, stupider?

Yes stupider.

That's when you are already stupid and you do something even more stupid, or "stupider".

Hope that clarifies things!

 

[DakotaKai_fan20]

Then the first amendment doesn't really apply.

Yes it does. Free speech includes EVERYTHING that is a talking point.

 

[jotathought]

Who is supporting censorship? Please name the Democrat...or...anyone for that matter.

Clinton, Harris and Walz for starters.

 

[daveman]

Democrats want politicians to be called on their lies and media that is entertainment and not news to be labeled as such.

...except for Democrats' lies, of course.

Disagreeing with Democrats is "hate speech" and "misinformation" and should be punished harshly.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You don't get to lie with impunity. Period.
Conservatives take a lie..and repeat it over and over, hoping that the masses will get tired of it and eventually swallow it as the truth.
Exactly how El Rushbo said it should be done.

You spelled Liberal wrong.

 

[Mortis]

I'm asking the democrats this question since it was brought up in another thread of mine. Does censorship mean to you that you should be able to say whatever you want even if it hurts somebody or just be able to voice your opinions because for us conservatives it's the latter. Or rather being against censorship.

When Twitter (Before Elon Musk bought it) removed Trump off the social platform.

When the IRS tried to silence Conservatives during the Obama Administration.

When the left didn't like when some Conservative speaking, they would cut them off...

The list goes on.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes it does. Free speech includes EVERYTHING that is a talking point.

No. The first amendment, which deals with free speech, is about the government persecuting people for their speech, not facebook.

 

[Coyote]

In one case something is illegal and in the other case it's not. Also there are times when you shouldn't say something even when you can. Btw, sorry for my rant about but these idiots never cease to amaze me with how stupid that they are.

Ok…so you define censorship as the government making certain speech illegal?

I’m still not exactly understanding your question.

Private entities, like social media, can censor what ever the hell they want, it’s their playground.

But, the government can censor via legislation and creating laws that apply to private entities as well. Social Media cannot promote child trafficking or recruit for terrorist groups.

Free speech means the government cannot restrict your right to free expression in public spaces, but it isn’t unlimited. People have a right to voice their opinion even if it is hurtful but that doesn’t mean they won’t face consequences.

 

[jotathought]

Censorship via the government or are we talking social media here?

Why would that matter? For example, in Great Britain, individuals are being arrested for posting content that others find offensive, and this mirrors the desire of Clinton, Harris, and Walz as they discussed free speech and its suppression on social media.

Hell, Gavin Newsom signed legislation in California (including punitive measures) on the use of AI to create political ads and publishing them to social media platforms, which could be seen as misleading (i.e., satire).

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You do know you're not dispelling any notion that you are the same poster...right??

I always wanted to be in April in Paris

 

[Crepitus]

Why would that matter? For example, in Great Britain, individuals are being arrested for posting content that others find offensive, and this mirrors the desire of Clinton, Harris, and Walz as they discussed free speech and its suppression on social media.

Hell, Gavin Newsom signed legislation in California (including punitive measures) on the use of AI to create political ads and publishing them to social media platforms, which could be seen as misleading (i.e., satire).

Neither one of which has anything to do with the topic.

 

[daveman]

No. The first amendment, which deals with free speech, is about the government persecuting people for their speech, not facebook.

If the socials moderate content, then they are publishers, not providers, and lose the protects of providers.

 

[DakotaKai_fan20]

Why would that matter? For example, in Great Britain, individuals are being arrested for posting content that others find offensive, and this mirrors the desire of Clinton, Harris, and Walz as they discussed free speech and its suppression on social media.

Hell, Gavin Newsom signed legislation in California (including punitive measures) on the use of AI to create political ads and publishing them to social media platforms, which could be seen as misleading (i.e., satire).

We can be facing the same here if a Republican doesn't win after Trump leaves office.

 

[Road Runner]

Yes stupider.

That's when you are already stupid and you do something even more stupid, or "stupider".

Hope that clarifies things!

It clarifies that you obviously flunked English class.

Ok…so you define censorship as the government making certain speech illegal?

I’m still not exactly understanding your question.

Private entities, like social media, can censor what ever the hell they want, it’s their playground.

But, the government can censor via legislation and creating laws that apply to private entities as well. Social Media cannot promote child trafficking or recruit for terrorist groups.

Free speech means the government cannot restrict your right to free expression in public spaces, but it isn’t unlimited. People have a right to voice their opinion even if it is hurtful but that doesn’t mean they won’t face consequences.

Let me put it another way. The US Constitution gives us second amendment rights but only if we feel like our safety and lives are being threatened.

This message board is pretty much open to free speech, but there are still certain rules that need to be followed. Does that make more sense to you? With our rights comes responsibility to know that just because we're a free country doesn't mean we can say it do anything that we want to.

In any discussion such as this, all a person needs to ask is which person in this thread is most responsible for preventing others from telling the truth.

Most anybody who is a democrat within a few exceptions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't get to lie with impunity. Period.
Conservatives take a lie..and repeat it over and over, hoping that the masses will get tired of it and eventually swallow it as the truth.
Exactly how El Rushbo said it should be done.

You don't get to lie with impunity. Period.

Why not?

 

[Mortis]

Conservatives take a lie..and repeat it over and over, hoping that the masses will get tired of it and eventually swallow it as the truth.

Really?

The Democrats have repeatedly been caught lying on many occasions. They actually make stuff up and call it "Truth".

So, actually....you do get to lie with impunity. They do it on a daily basis.

 

[Crepitus]

If the socials moderate content, then they are publishers, not providers, and lose the protects of providers.

And yet still aren't part of the government, although who knows where Elmo is going with his failing platform.

 

[Crepitus]

It clarifies that you obviously flunked English class.

Nope, sorry.

You just did.

Stupider and stupidest are real words in good standing. While there are many (often contradictory) rules on comparative and superlative adjectives, there is no rule against stupider and stupidest, and the words have a long history of usage.

Are 'stupider' and 'stupidest' real words?

Some smart advice on modifying adjectives

www.merriam-webster.com