Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Dogmaphobe]

Any time I see the word Commies I bypass the post.

Yes, you do not want to be criticized.

You simply want to impose, limit and control.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Only in the mind of the ignorant.

I am not in the least bit ignorant of the way Tommy Robinson has been treated as a warning to all you sheeple to look the other way when Pakistani men rape your children. You claim to have free speech, but he was arrested for expressing his, then tried and thrown in the gulag all within hours in a prearranged plot to intimidate any who might otherwise oppose the rape of your children by these foreign invaders.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

I've always, always been a rabid defender and advocate of freedom of expression. Not just Freedom of Speech as defined by the Constitution, but as broad a definition as possible. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule -- shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, "bomb" in an airport, directly inciting crime, stuff like that -- but otherwise I want to know what people are thinking and who agrees with them. That can only be accomplished with freedom of expression.

But goddamn, I suspect the Founders made certain assumptions, one of which is that we would not allow ourselves to literally lie our way into separate, competing realities like this. Their expectations of us proved to be too high, and now we have so many craven propagandists who are enabled to leverage their freedom of expression to just make reality up as they go.

You make a terribly important point, and this is what truly concerns me about this: If we continue choosing to do this, if we can't practice freedom of expression in good faith, then we are just INVITING an authoritarian government intrusion into our lives. If that happens, all these people who are pushing and enabling this alternate universe will be the first to claim victimhood. And that will be the most ironic moment of all.

 

[Desperado]

I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.

Actually not.

It was not the Framers’ intent that the press and private citizens be at liberty to say or print anything at all with impunity; private citizens could denounce, boycott, and condemn speech that private society considered to be inappropriate and dangerous.

It was Framer’ intent that government not make such determinations.

How the hell doyou know what the framers intent was? Doyu have inside information or is that your personal opinion? Speaking of personal opinions willthe government censor your personal opinion if it goes against their agenda?

 

[Mac-7]

I've always, always been a rabid defender and advocate of freedom of expression.

What a pointless post

You ramble on for 3 paragraphs without saying anything specific

What do you want?

Let me hazard a guess

And end to conservative talk radio and Fox News

Right?

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?

I suppose if we only get one “truth” as they do in china, New Zealand, or Mac1958 dream world that would promote a form of domestic tranquility that we dont have in America

But its not a country I want to live in

 

[dblack]

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.

Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There have always been limits on free speech.

True, both as a matter of law and private society.

First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.

Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.

Thank you so much.. Do you suppose Trumpies don't know that?

Whether they know it or not, ultimately they don’t care.

Like Trump himself, Trump’s authoritarian supporters have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, in this case the First Amendment.

They’d gladly use the authority of the state to violate the First Amendment rights of social media.

 

[surada]

There have always been limits on free speech.

True, both as a matter of law and private society.

First Amendment free speech case law determines what speech government may limit or preempt and what speech it may not.

Private social media are not subject to First Amendment free speech case law; the speech of social media is limited by private citizens in the context of private society, absent interference by government or the courts.

Thank you so much.. Do you suppose Trumpies don't know that?

Whether they know it or not, ultimately they don’t care.

Like Trump himself, Trump’s authoritarian supporters have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, in this case the First Amendment.

They’d gladly use the authority of the state to violate the First Amendment rights of social media.

I know........

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?

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.

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home. If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.

View attachment 513663

ever hear of a monopoly?

Ever hear of MySpace? They WERE a big deal and now their gone. Nothing is permanent about anything. If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out? Reagan would be embarrassed.

A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.


Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.

This is a lie - as ignorant as it is idiotic.

Neither FB nor the government are engaging in ‘prior restraint.’

Look up your sacred "case law", drive-by peckerhead.

prior restraint

www.law.cornell.edu

It’s often said - and it’s indeed true - that the First Amendment is intended to defend and protect the rights of the most unpopular speech and the most hated speakers from attack by government seeking to silence that unpopular speech and hated speaker.

Social media is very much hated, and conservatives in fact seek to silence social media using the power of the state; thankfully - at this point at least - the First Amendment prohibits conservatives from doing so.

 

[dblack]

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.

Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?

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.

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

It's possible. But as long as they have no legislative power, such a commission could be easily ignored. And likely would be, if they couldn't convince the public that they were non-partisan.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are limits on free speech. They are called decorum, politeness, discernment...
Self imposed limits are the only tolerable ones. Civility should be the common denominator.

Correct - as intended by the Framers.

That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘political correctness’ or ‘cancel culture,’ it was the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, and limit it accordingly, absent interference by government or the courts.

 

[Mac-7]

it was the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, and limit it accordingly, absent interference by government or the courts.

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

 

[K9Buck]

Yes, only views that align with those of Joe Biden should be permitted to be expressed.

 

[K9Buck]

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

It's pointless to try and reason with the resident leftists. They are liars and FOOLS. I have well over 100 of them on "ignore" because all they do is lie and they offer nothing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Spreading false medical information is dangerous.

The question is does this rise to the level of the press reporting troop movements during a time of war, the courts have held that government prohibiting the press from doing so is lawful and does not violate the First Amendment.

 

[dblack]

it was the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, and limit it accordingly, absent interference by government or the courts.

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

It was the framers intent that government have no power to dictate what newspapers publish.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Arent you calling for government to decide what is true and what isnt?

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.

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

So we have a new dictator?

 

[Oddball]

It’s often said - and it’s indeed true - that the First Amendment is intended to defend and protect the rights of the most unpopular speech and the most hated speakers from attack by government seeking to silence that unpopular speech and hated speaker.

Social media is very much hated, and conservatives in fact seek to silence social media using the power of the state; thankfully - at this point at least - the First Amendment prohibits conservatives from doing so.

Lying out your ass and projecting: it's what you do.

Fact remains that what antisocial media is doing falls well into the illegal behavior of prior restraint.....It's fascist asswipes like you who detest the 1st Amendment.