Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Rigby5]

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.

No, it wouldn't.

Yes, it can.

Wrong.
Once you allow censorship, then all the wealthy elite have to do is buy or destroy all the alterative media competition, and they can control every thing every one sees or hears.
That guarantees a dictatorship.

Didn't the lies about Iraqi WMD teach you anything?
We already have a monopoly on information enough as it is.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is entirely different in that disclosing troop movements violates security laws.
A political opinion about something like election fraud or the epidemic, does not.
And then censorship is totally and completely illegal unless ruled by a judge.

 

[Rigby5]

Also wrong.

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

I never said that speech inciting violence was protected.
The point is that it is up to a court to decide if the speech was illegal or not, and not some corporation with its own agenda.
The principle of no prior restraint means you let the speech through, but only prosecute or sure illegal and harmful speech.
You do not let arbitrary standards be forced on us to prevent us from getting all the information and side to any political question.
Censorship of any kind is always wrong.

{...
Censorship is certainly not the answer to controversial material and is inconsistent with our most basic constitutional values. Kimberle Williams Crenshaw
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{...
The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. George Bernard Shaw
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{...
Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever. Noam Chomsky
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{..
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. George Bernard Shaw
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

{...
The prime goal of censorship is to promote ignorance, whether it is done via lying and bowdlerized school texts or by attacking individual books. Felice Picano
Read more at Censorship Quotes - BrainyQuote
...}

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I believe the FCC over regulated TV, but that is different because it is broadcast to all age groups.
The internet can easily filter by age, membership, etc.
The public should NOT be demanding contend control, but recourse.
The media service providers should have a means by which people are aided in being able to sue when there are harmful slander and libel.
The problem is that the FCC never made means of pursuing internet harm accessible.
But that can be fixed, and arbitrary censorship instead is not the answer.
For example, revenge porn.
Obviously that is harmful and should be prosecuted or grounds for a law suit, but the FCC has failed to make legal recourse accessible.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

Is that due process of the law? Sounds like a civil rights violation.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Also wrong.

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

Yet, you defend the cancel culture.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation.

Short of national security issues, the state does not get to decide what information is "dangerous".
You may think it is a good idea now, but in the future, you will likely disagree.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.

Nope, you're wrong.

Once you allow censorship, then all the wealthy elite have to do is buy or destroy all the alterative media competition, and they can control every thing every one sees or hears.
That guarantees a dictatorship.

Didn't the lies about Iraqi WMD teach you anything?
We already have a monopoly on information enough as it is.

You want to replace private "censorship" with state control of the media. Like they do in China. No thanks.

 

[dblack]

You're thinking in terms of stereotypes created by both conservatives and liberal media.

No, I'm thinking in terms of ideology and values.

Very few people actually support all the issues or philosophies in the stereotypes.

That's not the issue. I'm not talking about ideological purity. I'm just asking for some consistency. What I see, from both major parties, is complete hypocrisy. "It's different when we do it", could be the motto for either party. They flip and flop with the wind, grasping at whichever arguments benefit their party in the moment (nation be damned). Even if it's a complete reversal of what they were arguing three months ago regarding another issue.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Short of national security issues, the state does not get to decide what information is "dangerous".
You may think it is a good idea now, but in the future, you will likely disagree.

The Leftists were all about free speech back when Russia collusion was a thing.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
It is illegal censorship when tenured professors are fired over political beliefs.
It is illegal to fire people over sexual allegations that were never proven in court.
It is illegal to fire people over old racist jokes or blackface.
It is illegal to fire people who refuse an vaccine not FDA approved.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Correct.
The FCC is not protecting rights on the internet.
So then providers are doing it all themselves, which is the wrong way for it to be done.
There need to be public court actions, not private censorship.

 

[Rigby5]

Also wrong.

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

Wrong.
It is only an opinion as to whether or not speech is harmful to others, until after a court ruling.
All speech is entitled to 1st amendment protection until a court has ruled otherwise.
The exception would only be something that violated national security laws.

Advocating imminent lawlessness can be perfectly legal, such as advocating civil disobedience over things like the Vietnam war, civil rights, Black Lives Matter, the invasion of Iraq, the War on Drugs, or hundreds of other felonies committed by government.

The legislative and executive bodies are not law and can not arbitrarily impose their beliefs on citizens.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
It is illegal censorship when tenured professors are fired over political beliefs.
It is illegal to fire people over sexual allegations that were never proven in court.
It is illegal to fire people over old racist jokes or blackface.
It is illegal to fire people who refuse an vaccine not FDA approved.

Maybe, in your world, it would be easier if government just issued a list of "approved" reasons for firing someone. Or maybe each employer would be assigned a state minder who would have to sign off on any hiring/firing decisions.

 

[Rigby5]

Maybe, in your world, it would be easier if government just issued a list of "approved" reasons for firing someone. Or maybe each employer would be assigned a state minder who would have to sign off on any hiring/firing decisions.

The way law is supposed to work is people do what they think they need to do, and then a judge decides later if they were wrong or right.
Employers can fire whom they want, but they then later may have to pay out large sums.

 

[dblack]

The way law is supposed to work is people do what they think they need to do, and then a judge decides later if they were wrong or right.
Employers can fire whom they want, but they then later may have to pay out large sums.

But with so many reasons for firing being banned, it seems like it would more clear if there was a government official they could ask. If not minders for each business, at least some kind of hotline or something.

 

[Rigby5]

But with so many reasons for firing being banned, it seems like it would more clear if there was a government official they could ask. If not minders for each business, at least some kind of hotline or something.

But the government seems to be the worst about knowing what is legal anymore.
In the past, it had always been illegal to fire over allegations of sexual misconduct, racism, political beliefs, etc.
But apparently employers can now do whatever they want.
There are only few explicit forms of discrimination that are illegal, like over race, age, sex, and religion, and people seem to now have the mistaken believe that only these explicitly listed forms are illegal.
No one seems to know law any more.
Most lawyers mistakenly believer the Bill of Rights only applies to act by the federal government, and that has not been true for over 100 years.

Of course any smart employer would just not say why they are firing.
They don't have to, and you can't sue over what has not been confirmed.

 

[dblack]

But the government seems to be the worst about knowing what is legal anymore.

LOL - ayup. So many laws no one could possibly keep track. Ahh, ain't ubiquitous state regulation grand?

In the past, it had always been illegal to fire over allegations of sexual misconduct, racism, political beliefs, etc.
But apparently employers can now do whatever they want.
There are only few explicit forms of discrimination that are illegal, like over race, age, sex, and religion, and people seem to now have the mistaken believe that only these explicitly listed forms are illegal.
No one seems to know law any more.
Most lawyers mistakenly believer the Bill of Rights only applies to act by the federal government, and that has not been true for over 100 years.

Hey - I was being sarcastic. I think the kind of totalitarian government you're after is bonkers.

Of course any smart employer would just not say why they are firing.
They don't have to, and you can't sue over what has not been confirmed.

Yes. That's actually a relatively sane response to overbearing government - lie, cheat and steal. Doesn't do much for the "moral fabric" of society, but we don't seem to really care about that.

 

[Rigby5]

LOL - ayup. So many laws no one could possibly keep track. Ahh, ain't ubiquitous state regulation grand?

Hey - I was being sarcastic. I think the kind of totalitarian government you're after is bonkers.



Yes. That's actually a relatively sane response to overbearing government - lie, cheat and steal. Doesn't do much for the "moral fabric" of society, but we don't seem to really care about that.

It being illegal for fire over things like political beliefs, sexual allegations, etc. is NOT overbearing government.
It is the exact opposite, in that it is about protecting individual rights.
If you do not protect individual rights through law, then it becomes easy to create an authoritarian dictatorship through economic discrimination and coercion.

 

[dblack]

It being illegal for fire over things like political beliefs, sexual allegations, etc. is NOT overbearing government.

Yes, it is. The worst sort.

It is the exact opposite, in that it is about protecting individual rights.

I can't get my head wrapped around that kind of twisted world view. You seem to think a "right" is the power to force someone else to do what you want. That's just weird.