Impact of Free Speech

[Blues Man]

Bullshit! I just posted proof of them doing so!

No that wasn't proof of anything.

And even that did not violate your first amendment rights

 

[Blaster]

We already have limits on free speech

We don't need more

Where is it written that you have a right not to get your feelings hurt?

Freedom of speech is fundamental in a free society.

 

[Blues Man]

Soft living has shifted society to the left, and the media now dominated by younger people yet still in pursuit of revenue needs to follow. We are born naked, symbolizing our primal nature, freedom of speech is an acquired thing, not something we are born with. Young people will forgo those freedoms if it satisfies their emotions.

Sophistry

 

[Blues Man]

Freedom of speech is fundamental in a free society.

And we have it in abundance.

The problem is people think that not only must they be allowed to say what they want they must also be provided a venue in which to say it.

 

[Gregory A]

Look none of that has any effect on your ability to say what you want.

You are not guaranteed an audience or a venue by the first amendment.

These social media sites are all privately owned. They have their own set of rules which you must agree to to post on their sites.

Even if you get banned from Twitter or wherever your free speech rights have not been violated because you can still post on other less restrictive sites. you can post your own blog, you can host your own website etc.

So there is no violation of the first amendment.

The government cannot compel any social media site to censor anyone

Social media sites are privately owned but they are in public places. That is the public can read and write freely from and to these sites. Because of this, these companies should be obliged to respect the rights of the public and not practice censorship.

 

[The Duke]

No that wasn't proof of anything.

And even that did not violate your first amendment rights

However, it led to here where there are links to proof of , and I quote: "A vast Censorship Enterprise"

Missouri and Louisiana Attorneys General Ask Court to Compel Department of Justice to Produce Communications Between Top Officials and Social Media Companies

ago.mo.gov

Ex: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-sou...ead-docs/hhs-fb-email-1.pdf?sfvrsn=53bc4454_2

It's not all about me, it's about the Executive Branch and these agencies trampling on the 1st amendment; Completely

disregarding it, even.

 

[Blues Man]

Social media sites are privately owned but they are in public places. That is the public can read and write freely from and to these sites. Because of this, these companies should be obliged to respect the rights of the public and not practice censorship.

Not true.

You must first agree to their terms of service.

It is a venue they provide it is not a public space. It's more like a room in a privately owned home on a public street

 

[Blues Man]

However, it led to here where there are links to proof of , and I quote: "A vast Censorship Enterprise"

Missouri and Louisiana Attorneys General Ask Court to Compel Department of Justice to Produce Communications Between Top Officials and Social Media Companies

ago.mo.gov

Where are the violations of the first amendment?

 

[The Duke]

Where are the violations of the first amendment?

It's highlitghted in the communications listed, even.

I already posted one example and there's many more there.

If you can't figure it out from there, I can't help you.

 

[Gregory A]

Not true.

You must first agree to their terms of service.

It is a venue they provide it is not a public space. It's more like a room in a privately owned home on a public street

Wrong. They would have no right to impose a term of service on what is a public place. It is not to be compared to a privately owned home as you are not violating anyone's privacy by looking in. If they were to choose to make it truly private, then to read or to write would require a password, a situation pragmatism would not allow as they would soon drop their contrived values for the sake of the money they presently earn by being public.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

shouldn’t we put some limits on free speech or possibly abandon the concept altogether?

That depends on what is meant by ‘free speech.’

As a matter of governance and Constitutional law, no – it is neither the role nor responsibility of government to regulate, limit, or preempt speech because of its content; that’s why hate speech is entitled to First Amendment protections, for example.

In the context of private society, outside the realm of government and the Constitution, it was never the intent of the Framers that speech be unbridled and without consequences; the Framers envisioned private citizens regulating speech absent interference from the government or the courts as codified by the First Amendment.

That private citizens in the context of private society might oppose, condemn, or denounce speech society at large considers to be inappropriate or harmful neither ‘violates’ nor ‘preempts’ free speech – the doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed.

It’s best left to private citizens to determine the appropriateness of speech, not the government; and the concept itself should never be abandoned by the people or their government.

 

[Blues Man]

It's highlitghted in the communications listed, even.

I already posted one example and there's many more there.

If you can't figure it out from there, I can't help you.

Sorry but the government talking to businesses is not a violation of the first amendment

No one here has had their first amendment rights violated no one here has been censored by the government

 

[Blues Man]

Wrong. They would have no right to impose a term of service on what is a public place. It is not to be compared to a privately owned home as you are not violating anyone's privacy by looking in. If they were to choose to make it truly private, then to read or to write would require a password, a situation pragmatism would not allow as they would soon drop their contrived values for the sake of the money they presently earn by being public.

right which is why Twitter isn't a public space.

Any social media platform can delete posts and ban users because they are NOT public spaces they are privately funded websites. And all they do is sell space to advertisers and that does not make them public spaces.

You as a user are not paying for using these sites you are allowed to use them by the companies that own the sites and those companies have no obligation to you whatsoever and cannot violate your first amendment rights.

 

[presonorek]

The only limits we have on free speech that I am currently aware of involve libel or public safety issues like inciting a riot.

What are examples of speech that has been banned by the government?

Southern States never banned black people from voting. They banned people that couldn’t read from voting.

There are laws vague enough to convict someone for what they say without saying they are guilty for what they said. I know firsthand about a law like that in North Carolina. I won’t elaborate because it would appear personal and not principle related.

 

[Gregory A]

right which is why Twitter isn't a public space.

Any social media platform can delete posts and ban users because they are NOT public spaces they are privately funded websites. And all they do is sell space to advertisers and that does not make them public spaces.

You as a user are not paying for using these sites you are allowed to use them by the companies that own the sites and those companies have no obligation to you whatsoever and cannot violate your first amendment rights.

Twitter etc. relies on being in a public place to make money. If they were not 'public' you could not make a distinction between their site and one that has a door accessible by a password. They are in public they should respect the public!

Our only hope of enforcing this and protecting our free speech is the emergence of a new white queen, an unlikely outcome. Regardless we need to fight on, our duty as adult males even when fighting a war we cannot win. Disclaimers should not be used to violate our rights despite your defeatism.

 

[Gregory A]

Southern States never banned black people from voting. They banned people that couldn’t read from voting.

There are laws vague enough to convict someone for what they say without saying they are guilty for what they said. I know firsthand about a law like that in North Carolina. I won’t elaborate because it would appear personal and not principle related.

In the real world, one not dominated by 'our' X chromosome, the only people who would be allowed to vote would be adult males 25 years or older. Instead we let compassion decide these things, that's in the same way compassion is killing adult (white) males in the war (XvsY) it is fueling in the Ukraine.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——-/ I say your hateful, divisive speech must be silenced. Turn off your computer and keep your fool mouth shut. CHOP CHOP

 

[presonorek]

Sorry but the government talking to businesses is not a violation of the first amendment

No one here has had their first amendment rights violated no one here has been censored by the government

I have but I won’t get into it. I have been convicted of a Class 2 Misdemeanor in the State of North Carolina for something I said. I never threatened anybody. I never disturbed public safety. Free speech is not real. Beyond that I was also held in contempt of court for 2 days in jail for something I said on Facebook. So no, the freedom of speech does not exist. Low level courts do whatever the heck they want. To get justice you have to appeal. Freedom of speech does not exist. People that say otherwise have never pushed the envelope to see how strong the freedom of speech is.

As of this moment until April 8, 2022 there are certain things I could say that would get me thrown in jail. Yes. This is censorship. Freedom of speech does not exist.

 

[Blues Man]

Twitter etc. relies on being in a public place to make money. If they were not 'public' you could not make a distinction between their site and one that has a door accessible by a password. They are in public they should respect the public!

Our only hope of enforcing this and protecting our free speech is the emergence of a new white queen, an unlikely outcome. Regardless we need to fight on, our duty as adult males even when fighting a war we cannot win. Disclaimers should not be used to violate our rights despite your defeatism.

it's not a public space it is a privately owned company. You all volunteer to use it and you all agree to the terms of service which no one ever reads.

And like I said your right to free speech is not hampered by Twitter or whatever website. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you a venue or an audience.

 

[Blues Man]

I have but I won’t get into it. I have been convicted of a Class 2 Misdemeanor in the State of North Carolina for something I said. I never threatened anybody. I never disturbed public safety. Free speech is not real. Beyond that I was also held in contempt of court for 2 days in jail for something I said on Facebook. So no, the freedom of speech does not exist. Low level courts do whatever the heck they want. To get justice you have to appeal. Freedom of speech does not exist. People that say otherwise have never pushed the envelope to see how strong the freedom of speech is.

As of this moment until April 8, 2022 there are certain things I could say that would get me thrown in jail. Yes. This is censorship. Freedom of speech does not exist.

anecdotal