Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Flopper]

So when "the people" can fully agree on what "dangerous misinformation" is maybe that can happen. Of course if people could agree on what dangerous misinformation is they would already know better than to follow it so I'm not sure there is a point. I think you're dreaming. Also not sure if this thread doesn't qualify as dangerous misinformation.

You're missing my point. When people believe dangerous misinformation is being spread by any of the major social media companies, they register a complain with FTC and the company. There isn't much can done about bulletin boards, and blogs.

 

[Flopper]

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that advances in technology do not mitigate the rights and protected liberties enshrined in the Constitution; radio, television, and the internet are all within the scope of the First Amendment.

I agree with your statement but I believe the world in 1776 and 2020 is so vastly different that if the founders wrote the constitution today understanding how the country functions, there would be significant difference. Rights in the constitution would be there with only a few minor changes. I think they would address subjects such as immigration, race, voting rights, limit powers of the executive branch, address the supreme court, eliminate the electoral college, , and considering the impact of Internet they might well have something to say about that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I agree with your statement but I believe the world in 1776 and 2020 is so vastly different that if the founders wrote the constitution today there would be significant difference. Rights in the constitution would be there with only a few with minor changes. I think they would address subjects such as immigration, race, voting rights, limit powers of executive branch, and eliminate the electoral college which is there principally because they feared giving the people the power of the vote.

Another anti electoral college are we?, explains a lot

 

[Flopper]

What you suggest is incredibly dangerous, but was predicted years ago. Hence, the term "Orwellian."

With the advent of the Internet, principally the World Wide Wide, the belief that freedom of speech without limit is a constitution right. That of course is not so. The first amendment bars only government from abridging freedom of speech.

It is perfectly legal for internet providers, search engine providers, social media sites, news and opinion sites, businesses etc to do content filtering. In fact, most do to some extent now. Prior to the Internet, newspapers, TV, and radio filtered content. Remember the New York Times slogan, "All the news that is fit to print". These organizations filtered content because the public demanded. it. And this is how we should filter content today, in response to public demand. This begins with educating public and establishing a means for the public to request certain types of content be blocked. This won't stop all such content, nor should it. However it can serve as a limiting factor in the propagandizing of the country with misleading dangerous, and false information.

 

[dblack]

With the advent of the Internet, principally the World Wide Wide, the belief that freedom of speech without limit is a constitution right. That of course is not so. The first amendment bars only government from abridging freedom of speech.

It is perfectly legal for internet providers, search engine providers, social media sites, news and opinion sites, businesses etc to do content filtering. In fact, most do to some extent now. Prior to the Internet, newspapers, TV, and radio filtered content. Remember the New York Times slogan, "All the news that is fit to print". These organizations filtered content because the public demanded. it. And this is how we should filter content today, in response to public demand. This begins with educating public and establishing a means for the public to request certain types of content be blocked. This won't stop all such content, nor should it. However it can serve as a limiting factor in the propagandizing of the country with misleading dangerous, and false information.

Yep. Republicans used to get this. Most probably still do. Just not when it impacts them.

 

[Flopper]

Matters not if they are "private". If they are deleting and/or manipulating speech at the behest of the US govt for reasons OTHER than nat'l security, that's in violation of the Constitution.

I don't see many people in favor of goverment censoring. This is a job for content providers and social media providers backed by public demand.

 

[dblack]

I don't see many people in favor of goverment censoring. This is a job for content providers and social media providers backed by public demand.

Agreed. The last thing we want is for this to become a political concern.

 

[Flopper]

This is a private board and they set their terms of service on USMB.

Bill O'Reilly doesn't agree with you..He and Trump are suing media outlets for stating thier ticket sales are going slow.

I think they are suing for damages due false statements (libel).
Yes, this Board is private just as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media is. If members don't want to see misinformation that is a danger to the public being spread they can make their voices heard and many social media organizations will respond. However, there will always be some organization that believe in total freedom of speech regardless of the consequences.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

With the advent of the Internet, principally the World Wide Wide, the belief that freedom of speech without limit is a constitution right. That of course is not so. The first amendment bars only government from abridging freedom of speech.

It is perfectly legal for internet providers, search engine providers, social media sites, news and opinion sites, businesses etc to do content filtering. In fact, most do to some extent now. Prior to the Internet, newspapers, TV, and radio filtered content. Remember the New York Times slogan, "All the news that is fit to print". These organizations filtered content because the public demanded. it. And this is how we should filter content today, in response to public demand. This begins with educating public and establishing a means for the public to request certain types of content be blocked. This won't stop all such content, nor should it. However it can serve as a limiting factor in the propagandizing of the country with misleading dangerous, and false information.

I never said private entities could not regulate their platforms, but you seemed to infer that the government should be. If I misunderstood that then disregard.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Just read that alleged federal government is "advising" FB on "disinformation". Advising?

 

[Likkmee]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Sniff it before likkit

 

[Likkmee]

Just read that alleged federal government is "advising" FB on "disinformation". Advising?

Well. People who have Facebook are complete assholes so fukkem'
tweet that !

 

[Flopper]

Yes, you do not want to be criticized.

You simply want to impose, limit and control.

The world Commie is a dated derogatory slang for Communists. I have found that most all posts that use the word are filled with boring repetitive propaganda and not worth time.

 

[Flopper]

FaceBook, Twitter and other social media are working closely with biden to shield the public from facts or opinions that the Potus disagrees with

There are do many pressure points in broadcasting that a lib like biden can exploit that any “private” commission would eventually become a front group for the democrats

And one of the most power tools is the bully pulpit.

 

[Flopper]

To be fair, Flopper specifically mentions "government controlling media" as the result if we don't do something. So I assume the something he has in mind isn't legislative. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with some kind of professional organization that tries to offer some kind of assurance of quality and veracity among its members.

But politicians rarely settle for that. They'll move in before anything like that can be developed.

Typically, when society is unable to control harmful elements, it opens the door for government to control them. For example the Communist Chinese Party got control of the country by ending a 20 year civil and ending control by war lords. Under Mao, the central government unified the country, ended foreign domination, and made possible class mobility. Mao's successors maintain the control by improving lives of peasants and farmers followed by an industrially revolution.

In the US, the inability of society to end the ruthless and unethical business practices of the robbery barons in the 19th century lead to government controls on business which ultimately lead to regulated capitalisms. If we don't get control of the rapid rise in misinformation (fake news), government will.

 

[Flopper]

It was not the framers intent that newspapers publish only the opinions of liberals and suspend the accounts of conservatives

Which FaceBook and Twitter among others are doing

I doubt the framers were very concerned with newspapers. There were only 37 newspapers in the American colonies in 1775. They were all one page weeklies that concentrated on local news, announcements, and advertisements. Most of them were produced by print shops. The staff usually consisted of the editor who wrote everything and the printer who printed it. They were essentially a loss leader whose purpose was to promote business for the print shop. It wasn't until about 1775 that newspapers started to include political news. Although over half the colonists were literate, most news was spread by word of mouth by town criers and at taverns.

I really doubt the framers were very concerned what the man on the street thought. They were not the people that would be making the decisions on the revolution, the new country ,or their leaders because only 1 in 5 were allowed to vote, free, white, male, property owners over 21. I think most of the framers would be horrified by universal suffrage. If they knew that the country's leaders would be selected by Blacks', women, non-property owners, the poor, and the homeless, they probably would have remained loyal to the crown and we would be celebrating the king's birth day.

Colonial Print Culture · News in Colonial America · The News Media and the Making of America, 1730-1865

americanantiquarian.org

Mark Pocan says less than 25 percent of population could vote when Constitution was written

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, earned a True on the Truth-O-Meter in 2013 when he declared that "Nothing in the Consti

www.politifact.com

 

[FreeThink]

And?

The problem is authoritarians who seek to violate the First Amendment by subjecting social media to unwarranted regulation and restriction.

Don’t like how a given platform conducts business, then don’t participate.

Free trade capitalism thus defended, what about the critique of "squelching" opinions while the subject is still under debate. Scientists started with the animal-to-man vector theory, but when the lab-leak theory became more plausible, their was egg on the face of Facebook. Twitter squelched the story about Hunter Biden, but all that proved to be true, and worse. Amazon squelched Parler. The Cancel Culture is the problem. Authoritarianism here is not the problem.

 

[Flopper]

The so-called “pandemic” was, itself, almost entirely based on misinformation, on grotesque exaggerations and outright lies about what, in reality, was nothing more than a routine flu outbreak. On the use of fearmongering and misinformation by corrupt politicians to seize and abuse power over us to which they have no legitimate claim.

What you want to suppress as “misinformation” is those of us calling out this abusive hoax for what it truly is. This makes you complicit in the hoax and the accompanying abuse, as guilty as those directly responsible for it.

When we finally throw this hoax off, take our freedoms back, and start holding accountable those who imposed this bullshit on us, we will not forget willing accessories such as yourself.

You should be very worried. You chose the wrong side, and the consequences will come back to bite you.

By definition a pandemic is an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people. So you don't believe Covid-19 is a pandemic with over 191 million case in 220 countries and over 4.1 million deaths?

By comparison the season flu kills an average of 648,000 worldwide. Covid-19 has killed 6 times as many.
If this is not a pandemic, in your opinion what would constitute a pandemic?

BTW Covid-19 is caused by a virus in the Coronavirus family. All cases of the common flu are caused by viruses from the family Orthomyxoviridae. The only similar between covid-19 and the flu is they are both respiratory diseases.

 

[Flopper]

Another anti electoral college are we?, explains a lot

The Electoral College was a comprise between those that favored allowing citizens to select the nation's leadership and those that didn't. Most of founders feared giving the people the power to select their leaders. That is not the case today in either party. However, the party that loose power by abolishing of the Electoral College will oppose it. Today it's the republicans but that has not always been the case and probably won't in the future. Someday when abandoning the electoral college does not favor either party, we'll get rid of it and go with the popular vote.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Electoral College was a comprise between those that favored allowing citizens to select the nation's leadership and those that didn't. Most of founders feared giving the people the power to select their leaders. That is not the case today in either party. However, the party that loose power by abolishing of the Electoral College will oppose it. Today it's the republicans but that has not always been the case and probably won't in the future. Someday when abandoning the electoral college does not favor either party, we'll get rid of it and go with the popular vote.

We are the United States of America, the great people of Des Moines Iowa morals is different then the great people from San Francisco