Should Alt Right voices be silenced?

[mamooth]

If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?

Silenced, no.

But also not subsidized. Contrary to what they say, nobody owes them a platform.

And they should be regularly criticized by decent people.

 

[Lastamender]

Crappy social media are still private. Freaking socialist commies don't support private businesses. MAGA commies.

What did you leave the government out for? They are neck deep in this crap.

 

[dblack]

If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?

Of course not. "Congress shall make no law ..." We don't state control of the media.

 

[Lastamender]

Of course not. "Congress shall make no law ..." We don't state control of the media.

The state and the media control you. Don't they?

 

[dblack]

The state and the media control you. Don't they?

The state does - via the police and the military. "The media" have no such power. They don't control me.

Do they control you?

 

[Lastamender]

The state does - via the police and the military. "The media" have no such power. They don't control me.

Do they control you?

They control what you think. That is worse than handcuffs.

 

[FA_Q2]

The question was 'should they be silenced' and not should we pass a law to silence them.

Those are different things and it is telling that when the left hears 'silenced' it is automatically assumed that such can only be done through the force of law.

No they should not be silenced and that should INCLUDE the moronic companies trying to remove voices from the public discourse. Do they have the right to? Yes. SHOULD they? NO.

The concept of free speech starts with a culture of free speech. The law only follows after and the presence of the first amendment will be immaterial to that reality. Continue to cultivate a culture of cancellation and destruction of free speech and suddenly the first will simply be reinterpreted, as it already has been several times, to be something entirely different.

 

[dblack]

They control what you think. That is worse than handcuffs.

Speak for yourself.

 

[dblack]

The question was 'should they be silenced' and not should we pass a law to silence them.

Those are different things and it is telling that when the left hears 'silenced' it is automatically assumed that such can only be done through the force of law.

I disagree. As usual, the issue is swimming in equivocation, but those claiming that they've been "silenced" are evoking the specter of government censorship. They even cite the First Amendment when they are trying to bend the social media companies to their will. It's a deliberate attempt to conflate social media moderation practices with state censorship - and they're simply not the same thing. Once is back by violent force of law, one is not.

If these threads were simply saying that it's hypocritical and shitty of these websites to censor their (user's) content to fit their political agenda - I'd whole heartedly agree. But that's not the game they're playing.

The concept of free speech starts with a culture of free speech. The law only follows after and the presence of the second amendment will be immaterial to that reality. Continue to cultivate a culture of cancellation and destruction of free speech and suddenly the first will simply be reinterpreted, as it already has been several times, to be something entirely different.

I think we just need to be clear whether we're referring to freedom of speech - the constitutional right that government has an obligation to protect, or a "culture of free speech", a social value that government has no business meddling with..

 

[BrokeLoser]

If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?

Should Alt Right voices be silenced?​

Absolutely not...the "alt-right" will be the group that saves America....they are the new-age conservative with balls...ultimately they will be the ones to stomp on the necks of leftists and heard them into concentration camps.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree. As usual, the issue is swimming in equivocation, but those claiming that they've been "silenced" are evoking the specter of government censorship. They even cite the First Amendment when they are trying to bend the social media companies to their will. It's a deliberate attempt to conflate social media moderation practices with state censorship - and they're simply not the same thing. Once is back by violent force of law, one is not.

I do not disagree with that statement and none of what I have stated disagrees with that statement.

The question was pretty straight forward. The person putting it their may certainly be one of those that want government intervention but, to be perfectly honest, that is not an interesting point. It has been beaten to death on this forum over and over again. The interesting question, and the point I made, is that there is a difference between silencing alternative views and making voicing them illegal. The former question has been ignored on this forum almost entirely so it is the only one worth exploring.

If these threads were simply saying that it's hypocritical and shitty of these websites to censor their (user's) content to fit their political agenda - I'd whole heartedly agree. But that's not the game they're playing.

I think we just need to be clear whether we're referring to freedom of speech - the constitutional right that government has an obligation to protect, or a "culture free speech", a social value that government has no business meddling with..

I thought I was clear. I do not really care what point the OP was making, those that want daddy government to intervene on their behalf have already proven to be about as useful to talk to as a rock. They have no morals, ideology or core values. It is a simple party thing for them. What I am saying is that the MORE important point is that we, as a people and as a culture, should be rejecting those forces that want to compartmentalize and silence voices they disagree with. And I posit that continuing on this trend will all but guarantee the law will, at some point, intervene as it follows the culture. We will have lost free speech long before the law gets involved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You would like to think the corporations who are providing the platform be it TV channel, Newspaper or Social Media would have standards on accuracy of the information being given....

Now the question should be, can platforms be allowed to undermine the public by spreading misinformation?

You mean like the Left-BI telling Facebook to watch out, and we all know what that means.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What would you have the government do to make sure you can tell dangerous lies to gullible people and never be called out for it?

Good question. How did they the left get away with it for so long?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No! Misinformation is meant for one thing. To inform with real information.

I think what you actually mean is information approved by the Nazis.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?

It's what many are saying took place in the last election. It makes no sense that people (by a majority) would elect a senile old man that lived in government most of his life, never accomplished one major thing in that time, said the most racist things about black people than any other presidential candidate of our time, who's son was under investigation for shady deals he and his father were involved in. There is only one way that could possibly happen, keeping the people ignorant.

FLASHBACK: 16% of Biden voters would have voted differently if Hunter Biden laptop story was not suppressed by media, big tech

A poll previously put out by the Media Research Center showed that fully 16 percent of voters who were unaware of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have switched their minds and not voted for Joe Biden for president, had they known about it at the time.

thepostmillennial.com

 

[scruffy]

What would you have the government do to make sure you can tell dangerous lies to gullible people and never be called out for it?

The government is explicitly forbidden from doing ANYTHING about it, dumbass.