Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Rigby5]

That's what both sides are asking for.

The executive is never supposed to decide anything or ever censor,
That is supposed to be entirely and completely up to the courts to decide after the fact,

 

[Rigby5]

This is a frequent claim lately, but it's not been established. In any case, if it is established, it would be a gross overreach by the FCC.

This anti-discrimination shit is, and always had been, an abuse of state power. And it's the driving force, the twisted logic, behind so many other ill-conceived attempts to control people. The campaign by Trumpsters, and other liberals, to use it to justify state control of social media is only the latest example.

Any and all regulation of the internet can't be an over reach by the FCC, because that is exactly what the FCC is supposed to do.
People like FaceBook and Twitter who then use the federal internet to make money, have to abide by the existing FCC rules, which includes NO censorship or discrimination.

 

[dblack]

I can't make sense of what you mean?
What I am saying is there are laws against discrimination, including against censorship of political ideas you do not agree with.

I've seen no cites of laws like that that apply to social. If there such, they're a violation of free speech.

So then the FCC regulations prevent censorship on any media it has authority over, such as the internet and all its service providers.

Yes. It's not been legally established that social media sites are "service provider". Even if it is, such power should never reside with government

So then Twitter and Facebook can not legally censor anything.

I don't believe that's been established, and if it has it's an abuse of government.

If someone dislikes, disagrees with, or thinks something is harmful, then the only legal recourse is to prosecute or sue AFTER the fact.
The prior restraint of censorship is entirely and completely illegal.

Nope. It's not. Prior restraint applies to government not website and restauarants.

 

[HenryBHough]

You should go back and read the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

So in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, congress could not pass a law that viliorated your right to freedom speech. It addressed only the actions of congress. In the coming years it became clear that the founders had more in mind than just protecting the people from congress. As a result federal court rulings, federal laws, state constitutions and state laws, extended the protection to actions of federal, state, and local, government.

Generally, there is no right to free speech in private workplaces. In addition, there are a number of other limitations such as speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree. Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.

Ah, CONGRESS can't make the laws as described.

In Lexicon Liberal, however, those powers are reserved to Dictator Xiden and his executive-ordering ilk.,

Got it!

 

[Rigby5]

I've seen no cites of laws like that that apply to social. If there such, they're a violation of free speech.

Yes. It's not been legally established that social media sites are "service provider". Even if it is, such power should never reside with government


I don't believe that's been established, and if it has it's an abuse of government.

Nope. It's not. Prior restraint applies to government not website and restauarants.

Wrong.
Prior restraint applies to anyone.
If you want to take out a ad in a newspaper where you intend to slander your spouse with untrue claims of infidelity, it is illegal for the paper to censor and not take your money and print the ad.
The only legal procedure is for service providers like a newspaper to not censor, and then for those harmed to later sue the one who took out the ad.
Governments only obtain any authority by borrowing the delegated authority from individuals to protect their own inherent rights.
So then there can't be any difference between governments and any individuals.
What is harmful is for a judge to decide, not some commercial organization with its own profit motivated agenda.

 

[Concerned American]

the second which is declaration of fact.

Which, according to USMB rules, requires an accompanying link to justify--as news outlets traditionally did until the era of FAKE NEWS. Libel and Slander laws need to be beefed up and enforced. Also equal time laws need to be brought back.

 

[Rigby5]

Ah, CONGRESS can't make the laws as described.

In Lexicon Liberal, however, those powers are reserved to Dictator Xiden and his executive-ordering ilk.,

Got it!

And after the 14th amendment and the principles of incorporation and penumbra, no one can violate those principle of individual rights.
The Bill of Right used to just restrain government, but after the 14th amendment, no one can violate those individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.

Wronger.

 

[Rigby5]

Wronger.

If you are a service provider, like with a monopoly on some media like the internet, you can not legally censor.
To do so would be to act as judge, jury and executioner of ideas.
And that can never be allowed.

 

[dblack]

If you are a service provider, like with a monopoly on some media like the internet, you can not legally censor.

Yes, I know. All the Trumpsters have been insisting that FB, Twitter, etc are "service providers" or "monopolies" or any other excuse that pops into their heads. But they're not. They're just websites.

To do so would be to act as judge, jury and executioner of ideas.

No, it wouldn't.

And that can never be allowed.

Yes, it can.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Government entering into agreements with private companies to control information is an outright violation of the COTUS, and is fascism personified.

This is a lie – as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Government is not ‘controlling’ information with private social media.

In fact, advocacy through government speech is perfectly Constitutional.

the-government-speech-doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who, then?

Private citizens in the context of private society – what you conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute

Correct.

Rights are neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – they’re subject to regulation and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.

Wrong.

The courts have consistently held that prior restraint is justified and lawful provided it’s content-neutral – such as prohibiting the press from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.

Also wrong.

Speech that advocates for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protections.

 

[dblack]

Private citizens in the context of private society – what you conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture.’

Sure hate agreeing with you C.

The funny thing is how libs and cons have switched sides on this issue (and many others). All because Twitter was mean to the Donald.

 

[Flopper]

I did not say there are no limits on free speech.
What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.
So you must let them speak, even if what they say is illegal.
You can then only prosecute or sue later, after then have spoken.
It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.
That is not up to you to decide, and only a judge can.

I did not say there are no limits on free speech.
What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.
So you must let them speak, even if what they say is illegal.
You can then only prosecute or sue later, after then have spoken.
It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.
That is not up to you to decide, and only a judge can.

Sorry, I was addressing Rigby5.
I agree with your statements on prior restraint.

 

[Flopper]

Any and all regulation of the internet can't be an over reach by the FCC, because that is exactly what the FCC is supposed to do.
People like FaceBook and Twitter who then use the federal internet to make money, have to abide by the existing FCC rules, which includes NO censorship or discrimination.

The FCC policies and regulation in regard to media, (TV, Radio, Cable) seem to be much different than the Internet. I can't find much of anything about content control on the internet

The social media companies are between a rock and a hard place. Whichever course they choose, they lose. The public demands that social media control content to stop the flow of misinformation and lies that destroy reputations of individuals and businesses, and sway elections and also venomous hate speech that provokes violence. However Americans also demand social media stand firm in support of freedom of speech. We can't have both ways.

 

[westwall]

This is a lie – as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Government is not ‘controlling’ information with private social media.

In fact, advocacy through government speech is perfectly Constitutional.

the-government-speech-doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

Bullshit. The xiden admin is conspiring with fascistbook to control information. The fact that you approve is not surprising. You ARE a fascist through and through.

 

[Flopper]

Sure hate agreeing with you C.

The funny thing is how libs and cons have switched sides on this issue (and many others). All because Twitter was mean to the Donald.

You're thinking in terms of stereotypes created by both conservatives and liberal media. Very few people actually support all the issues or philosophies in the stereotypes.
There are liberals who hold some conservative view such as:
being a fiscal conservative
anti-abortion
own guns
oppose tax increases
strong supporters of law and order
oppose legalizing drugs

Just as there are conservatives who
oppose increases in military spending
supporting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
support a national minimum wage
not of the Christian faith
supports the equal rights amendment
supports universal healthcare

Of about a dozen liberals and conservative I know personally, there are only one or two who completely fit the liberal or conservative stereotype. So when you say switching sides, you may be referring to someone who does not completely fit ether stereotype which few people do.