How Do You Define Censorship?

[sparky]

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

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

why do you two think Zuck gained Gub'Mit attention here ?>>>

~S~

 

[MayorQuimby]

People have a right to voice their opinion even if it is hurtful but that doesn’t mean they won’t face consequences.

So basically, people can have free speech but there might be consequences for saying certain things.

In practice you are not censoring, but the spirit of your post is pro-censorship.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

It's one of those words that has many meanings.

However the main meaning is when a government, or a body with power over other people, prevents those people from speaking with a threat of punishment.

Should people be able to say everything they want? No.

Clearly there are laws in the US and other western countries that limit speech. Like libel, treason and so on. There are also hate speech laws.

The main theory of rights is that you can do anything you want, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people.

So, say whatever you like, as long as it doesn't take away peoples' rights and freedoms.

The right to be able to live a normal life in your country without harassment is something you have to consider when speaking.

 

[sparky]

So, say whatever you like, as long as it doesn't take away peoples' rights and freedoms.

they heard that frigid one

~S~

 

[frigidweirdo]

they heard that frigid one

View attachment 1051917

~S~

No idea what your post is about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Everyone, every side, lies.

Let's stop acting like one side.

But censoring the truth is tantamount to lying.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Government Statute Versus Private Prejudice "

" Whimsical Standards Of Democrat Idealism *

Censorship is the Sovereign preventing or punishing communications found to be unacceptable.
...
The idea that, for example, pornography was protected by the First Amendment never even occurred to Constitutional scholars before the 1950's. Thank you ACLU.

Unacceptable based on what ?

The equal protection of negative liberties among individuals is delimited for safety or security .

Where is the justification that pornography violates safety or security ?

There is a difference between what a government can do and what the private sector can do .

With respect to what government is seeking to do , the fake ass us republicans , like puritanical weeping , whining , pussies , are pushing democrat idealism for populism of democracy as tyranny by collective majority that is against independence of the individual .

With respect to what individuals may do , individuals can exercise their free roam and free association .

 

[Curried Goats]

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.

I'm in favor of allowing most all speech. The only type of speech I think should be criminalized is speech that is threatening or explicitly inciting people to violence. On top of that I think you should be held civilly accountable for speech that is defamatory or fraudulent and produces monetary harm. I don't think any of this should mean that you're owed a platform for your speech. You shouldn't have a right to be on, let alone speak on my property without my permission. Historically, these are progressive positions. Conservative minded Christians used to criminalize speech they deemed vulgar or offensive. You can still see the remnants of these policies with regards to swearing on public airways. We see similarly in public schools with attempts by Christian minded parents wanting to ban material on LGTBQ communities or sex education in public schools. Censorship and the criminalizing of speech is largely a conservative goal by any honest look at actual real world examples like Jeff Sessions DOJ charging someone with disrupting Congress when they involuntary laughed during his confirmation when he was described as someone who always fought for equality. The thing that conservatives are usually crying about is when their speech is protested or refused a platform by a private entity who doesn't feel inclined to provide them one.

 

[sparky]

Clearly there are laws in the US and other western countries that limit speech. Like libel, treason and so on. There are also hate speech laws.

so how does hate speech equate to libel and treason ?

is Alex Jones around?

~S~

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Iconoclasm Fanatics Enthralled With Whacking Off The Pornography Phallus "

* Heritage Foundation Rides The Constitutional Short Bus With Project Bus 2025 *

why do you two think Zuck gained Gub'Mit attention here ?>>>
View attachment 1051915
~S~

The private sector social media fruit loops seem to be relieving the public from a government stranglehold on free speech , due to he histrionics of puritanical closet phagocytes , by providing parental controls for children and adolescents .

 

[sparky]

" Iconoclasm Fanatics Enthralled With Whacking Off The Pornography Phallus "

* Heritage Foundation Rides The Constitutional Short Bus With Project Bus 2025 *

The private sector social media fruit loops seem to be relieving the public from a government stranglehold on free speech , due to he histrionics of puritanical closet phagocytes , by providing parental controls for children and adolescents .

Yes, they're doin the gub'mit's dirty work Monk......~S~

 

[Crepitus]

why do you two think Zuck gained Gub'Mit attention here ?>>>

View attachment 1051915
~S~

The republicans in the Senate wanted to censor his platform.

 

[otto105]

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.

Threatening to pull the broadcast license of a major network over a late night comedy show.

Threatening jail for newspaper articles critical of the regime.

 

[frigidweirdo]

so how does hate speech equate to libel and treason ?

is Alex Jones around?

View attachment 1051939
~S~

Did I say they equate? Nope.

 

[sparky]

Did I say they equate? Nope.

no you did not, i put it on the debate table Frigid one ~S~

 

[frigidweirdo]

no you did not, i put it on the debate table Frigid one ~S~

Right, you put something pointless on the table. Why?

You could have spoken about what we're actually talking about, instead you want to make it about hate speech equating libel and treason. Why?

 

[daveman]

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

Didn't say they were part of the government. At least make a token effort to keep up, willya?

 

[sparky]

Right, you put something pointless on the table. Why?

You could have spoken about what we're actually talking about, instead you want to make it about hate speech equating libel and treason. Why?

Free speech has been under fire for a while now Frigid one

Our government simply does not wish us to be informed of their doings and dealings

So once you get your head around that, we can delve into just what our gub'mit has been doing to achieve this

And no, they don't want you to put it all together

They want us to fight among ourselves about it

~S~

 

[daveman]

Everyone, every side, lies.

Let's stop acting like one side.

But censoring the truth is tantamount to lying.

 

[daveman]

The republicans in the Senate wanted to censor his platform.

They wanted to treat him as a publisher under the law. Because he was limiting content, he was not acting as a provider.