Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Skylar]

Once you put more restrictions on the freedom of speech, you've started shredding our Bill of Rights. Then of course, your left has had its eyes on eliminating the Second Amendment rights. In short, the left is a danger to our freedoms. If it had its way, we would be living under One-Party rule instead of the Constitution and the one thing that never changes under One-Party rule is, authoritarianism, oppression, tyranny and murder.
As for misinformation, you might start with the news media.
There was a case years ago, involving two reporters and Fox news. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I don't recall the details, but here's the basics of the news story. Two Fox reporters were given a story assignment. They did their research and presented it to the head of Fox. It was reviewed and they were told to go back and rewrite the story in a more favorable light. They did this and presented it for reviewal again and were told to change it further. At this point, they refused and were let go. The two reporters sued Fox and the case went to court. The judges decision: Because of the First Amendment, news agencies are "not" required to tell the truth, only do stories approved by their employers. Hence, because of that judgement, "all" news media lies when it fits their company owners narrative.
It would be nice if ONLY the news agencies were held to a higher standard and mandated to tell only the truth, but once you could do that, you can tell the general public what they can and can't say and when the government decides what you can or can't say, that's when the authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and murder creep in, for the government will dictate what opponents can or can't say and use force to ensure its side is the only one heard.

Aren't you guy the ones that tried to overthrow the government, arguing that the VP, all by himself, gets to decide who the next president is?

Where was the constitution in your little insurrection?

 

[DudleySmith]

The original intent was to protect political speech, not obscenity and porn, or alarmist nonsense, which is why they deported James Otis and several others. But, as one Founder pointed out, 'freedom of the press' belonged to those who owned the presses, so it was understood the 'right' was problematic and not without its flaws.

 

[DudleySmith]

The government doesn't need to prohibit such misinformation. Private businesses can regulate their own content.

As FB did when they showed Trump the door.

The internet is a public carrier, and as such the service providers shouldn't be censoring political or religious speech just because some corporate asshats don't like something.

 

[Skylar]

The internet is a public carrier, and as such the service providers shouldn't be censoring political or religious speech just because some corporate asshats don't like something.

How does 'the internet being a public carrier' forbid someone from regulating the content of their own websites?

I have several websites. Does that mean I have to let anyone post anything they want on them? Do I get a choice in the matter?

You're arguing that no website can set its own rules for the content on its own site. The rules of this board alone demonstrate that such a view is pseudo-legal nonsense.

 

[dblack]

How does 'the internet being a public carrier' forbid someone from regulating the content of their own websites?

The same way being a "public accommodation" forbids someone from discriminating.

 

[DudleySmith]

How does 'the internet being a public carrier' forbid someone from regulating the content of their own websites?

I have several websites. Does that mean I have to let anyone post anything they want on them? Do I get a choice in the matter?

You're arguing that no website can set its own rules for the content on its own site. The rules of this board alone demonstrate that such a view is pseudo-legal nonsense.

Bullshit. It's no different than public airwaves, and since the big outfifts are effectively monopolies with massive market shares they have no right to censor websites, block them from search engines, or deny them access to servers and satellite services. You commies and deviants will just have to get over it.

 

[dblack]

Bullshit. It's no different than public airwaves, and since the big outfifts are effectively monopolies with massive market shares they have no right to censor websites, block them from search engines, or deny them access to servers and satellite services. You commies and deviants will just have to get over it.

Hilarious. You're advocating for state run media, and calling others "commies and deviants". Hypocrite much?

 

[DudleySmith]

Hilarious. You're advocating for state run media, and calling others "commies and deviants". Hypocrite much?

Ah, more rubbish. I see you don't like the Bill Of Rights either. You think private corporations will enforce the laws? Those big corporations all signed on with BLM, and they were in bed with Red China since the 1970's, when Carter and REagan gave them MFN status and opened up access to massive amounts of slave labor for them.

 

[dblack]

Ah, more rubbish. I see you don't like the Bill Of Rights either.

Love it. It's just that I've actually read and understood it. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ..."

 

[DudleySmith]

Love it. It's just that I've actually read and understood it. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ..."

And you obviously didn't understand it. It's one of the government's primary functions to enforce it.

 

[dblack]

You think private corporations will enforce the laws?

I certainly hope not.

Those big corporations all signed on with BLM, and they were in bed with Red China since the 1970's, when Carter and REagan gave them MFN status and opened up access to massive amounts of slave labor for them.

You forgot the Jewish space lasers.

 

[dblack]

And you obviously didn't understand it. It's one of the government's primary functions to enforce it.

No, you have simpleton's understanding of the First Amendment. It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls.

 

[DudleySmith]

I certainly hope not.

You forgot the Jewish space lasers.

You forgot the list of big corporations is easily found and has been posted here several times, and the history of Red Chinese and big companies is also available. The 'space lasers' all live in your head, not mine.

 

[DudleySmith]

No, you have simpleton's understanding of the First Amendment. It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls.

They aren't banning trolls, they're banning content they don't like. You're the simpleton here.

 

[dblack]

They aren't banning trolls, they're banning content they don't like. You're the simpleton here.

Ok, please amend my post thusly: "It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls banning content they don't like."

Still holds. Still has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

 

[DudleySmith]

Ok, please amend my post thusly: "It's a prohibition against government interfering in free speech. It doesn't prohibit Facebook from banning trolls banning content they don't like."

Still holds. Still has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Wrong again. It prevents private corporations from using a government granted monopoly from picking and choosing which customers it will serve and those it won't. They use public carriers to transmit their cable and wi fi signals, and like the phone company they can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, speech, etc.

 

[dblack]

Wrong again. It prevents private corporations from using a government granted monopoly from picking and choosing which customers it will serve and those it won't.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Facebook is not a government granted monopoly. How long have you been a socialist? The "virtual monopoly" schtick is their go-to when they want to nationalize something.

 

[DudleySmith]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Facebook is not a government granted monopoly. How long have you been a socialist? The "virtual monopoly" schtick is their go-to when they want to nationalize something.

lol you never seem to have anything but sniveling. The 'virtual monopoly shctick' is going to court soon, so obviously there is a lot to it. They're no different than the railroads or Standard Oil or any number of Trusts formed over the last two hundred years. Like I said you really have no clue at all about the issues or what the government is supposed to do and not do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The internet is a public carrier, and as such the service providers shouldn't be censoring political or religious speech just because some corporate asshats don't like something.

Wrong.

The internet is made up of private publishers and organizations at liberty to edit content as they see fit and to determine who will or will not participate.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to regulate private publishers and organizations; indeed, for government to seek to do so would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

[DudleySmith]

Wrong.

The internet is made up of private publishers and organizations at liberty to edit content as they see fit and to determine who will or will not participate.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to regulate private publishers and organizations; indeed, for government to seek to do so would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

lol more commie rubbish. Suddenly now that corporations have hired their leaders they're suddenly all ;'Libertarian n Stuff'. lol @ the shallow losers and their hypocrisy.