Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Rigby5]

Yes, it is. The worst sort.

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.

You have it backwards.
The point is the employer does not have any need, justification, or defense of his rights, to fire others over their political opinions.
An employer who does that is just harming others out of his own desire, not rights.
Freedom is not about protecting political beliefs you like, but about protecting what you do not like.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once you allow censorship

It’s neither government’s role nor responsibility to ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ censorship.

How the press edits its content is not within the scope of government.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

No. There should be no limits.

 

[dblack]

You have it backwards.

Nah, you do.

You're rights aren't not being violated if you get fired from a job, regardless of the reason.

 

[Rigby5]

It’s neither government’s role nor responsibility to ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ censorship.

How the press edits its content is not within the scope of government.

Wrong.
When anyone could hand out handbills or pick a spot to orate to crowds passing by, then government did not need to get involved in preventing censorship.
But now that only multi million dollar corporations can access any significant portion of the public, how private companies censor or distort the truth most certainly IS within the scope of government.

For example, the press failed to challenge the lies over WMD in Iraq, so then were complicit to murder.
The press failed to prevent slander and libel against people fired for sexual misconduct that was never proven in court.
It was illegal for social media to censor anyone or anything at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Nah, you do.

You're rights aren't not being violated if you get fired from a job, regardless of the reason.

Wrong.
If people are fired over their religion, then that clearly is illegal and no better than the Kristallnacht.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This doesn’t make any sense.

‘The wealthy’ are part of the private sector, they’re not government; a ‘dictatorship’ is a manifestation of government, the public sector – one having nothing to do with the other.

What guarantees a dictatorship is using the authority of the state to exact punitive measures against the press and private media – the Florida law enacted by Republicans to punish social media for exercising their right to freedom of association would be an example of a prelude to dictatorship; which is why that law as appropriately invalidated by the courts.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
When anyone could hand out handbills or pick a spot to orate to crowds passing by, then government did not need to get involved in preventing censorship.

Believe it or not, passing out handbills and speaking to crowds passing by is still legal! I just looked it up. Now, I supposed you'd like to make that illegal too, but far, it's still allowed.

But now that only multi million dollar corporations can access any significant portion of the public, how private companies censor or distort the truth most certainly IS within the scope of government.

Well, that's your claim. I think state control of the media is step toward totalitarian government, and a really bad idea - so I'm hoping we can defeat you!

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
If people are fired over their religion, then that clearly is illegal and no better than the Kristallnacht.

I know it's illegal. It's a stupid law. Regardless, no one's rights are being violated if they lose their job, regardless of the reason.

 

[Rigby5]

This doesn’t make any sense.

‘The wealthy’ are part of the private sector, they’re not government; a ‘dictatorship’ is a manifestation of government, the public sector – one having nothing to do with the other.

What guarantees a dictatorship is using the authority of the state to exact punitive measures against the press and private media – the Florida law enacted by Republicans to punish social media for exercising their right to freedom of association would be an example of a prelude to dictatorship; which is why that law as appropriately invalidated by the courts.

Wrong.
All dictatorships are always where the private sector takes over the government.
The private sector is always the problem.
Government is just the tool or means by which they take over.
Government itself is not and never has been the problem.

Freedom of association is good, but censorship is not.

 

[Rigby5]

Believe it or not, passing out handbills and speaking to crowds passing by is still legal! I just looked it up. Now, I supposed you'd like to make that illegal too, but far, it's still allowed.

Well, that's your claim. I think state control of the media is step toward totalitarian government, and a really bad idea - so I'm hoping we can defeat you!

Of course handbills and soapbox oration is legal, the point is it not longer is effective.

No one suggested state control of the media.
The point is to stop anyone from controlling the media, and ensure all messages get out, even those that one disagrees with.
Only then, after the population has heard all the opinions, it the truth most likely to win out.

 

[Rigby5]

I know it's illegal. It's a stupid law. Regardless, no one's rights are being violated if they lose their job, regardless of the reason.

Wrong.
Firing someone over what is not work related, obviously can harm 6 million people.
What if it is a company town and there only is one employer?

 

[dblack]

Of course handbills and soapbox oration is legal, the point is it not longer is effective.

Nah, it's still effective. Especially for local issues. You can also create your own website, and it's dirt cheap. The fact of the matter is, it's much, much easier for you to express your opinions to large groups of people now than it ever was.

No one suggested state control of the media.

Oh, my bad, just "regulation", that's not control or anything.

Point of fact - control is exactly what you're looking for. And you'll probably get your way. Republicans no longer give a shit about limited government. They're just as eager as the Democrats to get their hands on social media. Seems kind of inevitable from that perspective.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The FCC is not protecting rights on the internet.

There are no ‘rights’ on the internet – rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or organizations, such as social media and their subscribers.

Government exacts regulatory oversite only; the content of the press and private social media are beyond the scope of government authority – government seeking to control content is un-Constitutional.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
Firing someone over what is not work related, obviously can harm 6 million people.
What if it is a company town and there only is one employer?

What right is being violated? Are you saying you have a right to force someone to provide you with job?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You’re still not making any sense – none of this has anything to do with the fact that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not – that’s not the role of government.

The Framers’ intent with regard to the doctrine of freedom of speech is to prohibit government from seeking punitive measures against speech the government opposes.

It was not the intent of the Framers that speech be completely devoid of limits and restrictions; it was the Framers’ intent that the people would regulate speech – not government.

If a conservative talk show host uses the n-word on the air, it would be the role and responsibility of private citizens in the context of private society to determine that speech to be inappropriate, to demand that the radio station terminate the conservative talk show host, or to boycott the show’s sponsors.

This is why conservatives are wrong about the myth/lie of ‘cancel culture’; conservatives’ wrongheaded opposition the myth/lie of ‘cancel culture’ runs contrary to the Framers’ intent of private society regulating speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

What you and other conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture’ runs counter to the original intent of the Framers.

That conservatives are once again at odds with the Framers is of course nothing new.

 

[dblack]

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

It might be. Or civil rights legislation is idiotic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

private "censorship"

‘Censorship’ or the people determining what speech is appropriate as intended by the Framers, absent unwarranted interference by government and the courts.

Comparing ‘private ‘censorship’ with government censorship is clearly a fallacy – the latter is un-Constitutional; the former is not.

Private ‘censorship’ is devoid of the authority and power of the state; government censorship is comprehensive, private ‘censorship’ is not – that a private publisher might elect to not disseminate certain information doesn’t mean there aren’t other sources where that information can be found; that wouldn’t be the case with government censorship.

 

[dblack]

‘Censorship’ or the people determining what speech is appropriate as intended by the Framers, absent unwarranted interference by government and the courts.

Comparing ‘private ‘censorship’ with government censorship is clearly a fallacy – the latter is un-Constitutional; the former is not.

Private ‘censorship’ is devoid of the authority and power of the state; government censorship is comprehensive, private ‘censorship’ is not – that a private publisher might elect to not disseminate certain information doesn’t mean there aren’t other sources where that information can be found; that wouldn’t be the case with government censorship.

Agreed. I sure hope all the liberals who are suddenly jazzed about the rights of private business will remember these discussions going forward. Something tells me they won't.