The First Amendment is useless.

[Rigby5]

Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.


The First Amendment was passed in 1789. It provided Freedom of Worship, Speech, Press, and Association for all free people. Sadly, American Slaves had neither Rights nor Freedom. Russian and East European serfs also had few Rights and little Freedom. Fortunately, for more then a Century, every free person was free to express unpopular views.


During XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries, the economy and tools of production were simple. Most people were self-employed in craft and agriculture. Tools of communication were simple as well. Most political groups could own a small printing press. Even if some group would have attempted to "cancel" their political opponents by coercing every business to boycott them, they would not have been successful.


By the beginning of the XXth Century, means of Production and Communication became much more sophisticated and interconnected. Many workers came to depend on their employees for their very livelihood. During the Red Scare of 1917 -- 1920, and more so during McCarthyism 1947 -- 1957, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people were blacklisted for expressing Communist or Socialist views. This was the first instance of Authoritarian rule within the framework of the First Amendment.


For some time after 1957, America remained a Free Society. Very few people were fired for their political opinions, and they generally could find another job. They were fired for really offensive speech. For instance on August 6, 1965, disc jockey Bob Dayton was fired for joking on air about the 20th anniversary of bombing of Hiroshima.


During late 1980s and 1990s, Political Correctness came into force. Thousands of people were fired by universities and Liberal companies for disagreeing with Progressives. America ceased to be a Free Society, and became Authoritarian.


Authoritarianism of 1990s and 2000s was much milder then Totalitarianism of 2020s. During 2000s, I had some conversations with people who have publicly expressed Politically Incorrect views. They told me that they would never apply for a job in a Liberal company since they would not be hired. Nevertheless, they did find jobs with companies that valued Freedom.

Totalitarian Cancel Culture of 2020s is much worse then Political Correctness of the past decades. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs and careers for slightest offense against Progressives. Many of those who lose jobs are blacklisted. Even though many companies would like to hire these people, these companies are coerced by other businesses into not hiring them. Any company which falls out of line is boycotted by all other companies. Social Media censors speech which offends Progressives. When Parler was deplatformed by Amazon and Apple, almost every American company was afraid to work with Parler. The First Amendment did not prevent American Society from becoming Totalitarian. To a degree, the First Amendment Freedom of Association enables Totalitarianism.


Is there a possibility that the tide of Totalitarianism will turn back? Honestly, it is very unlikely. I am not optimistic about Conservatives organising fast enough to resist Totalitarianism. Nevertheless, anyone who values Freedom should take every practical legal step to oppose Totalitarianism. Maybe there is a chance.

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

2) Conservatives should help individuals and companies targeted by Progressive mobs.

3) In small Conservative counties, some businesses may help by firing Progressive workers. Boycotting businesses owned by Progressives or employing them may also be effective. This would be an effective pushback against Progressives. This would also encourage them to support part 1) -- greater employee protections.

If we have such a horrible, totalitarian repression of free speech, then why are you allowed to post this OP?

Are the FBI knocking on your door?

No?

Then STFU!!!

The reason why this is important is that it is NOT the government that is the biggest danger currently.
It is employers who are now starting to illegally harm our right to free speech, through economic extortion.
That is just as bad as sending goons to bust in your door.

 

[dblack]

The reason why this is important is that it is NOT the government that is the biggest danger currently.
It is employers who are now starting to illegally harm our right to free speech, through economic extortion.
That is just as bad as sending goons to bust in your door.

No. It's not as bad, not even close. And if you fools succeed in replacing free speech with state regulated media, we'll find out just how different they are.

 

[dblack]

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.

Not in most states. And it shouldn't be in any. If I don't like your politics, I won't post them on my webpage. Period.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The Bill of Rights is not originally intended to protect individual rights.
It was intended just to ban federal restrictions of some pre-existing rights, so that states or municipalities would have full jurisdiction over restrictions.

But the 14th amendment started the incorporation process, with the logic that if something is so important the federal government should not infringe, then maybe the states and local should not either?

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.
Not a boss, customer, store, service provider, or anyone at all.
Disney went way over the line and should be prosecuted, in my opinion.

I asked you for a link twice and you never responded.

What’s up with that?

 

[Rigby5]

The reason why this is important is that it is NOT the government that is the biggest danger currently.
It is employers who are now starting to illegally harm our right to free speech, through economic extortion.
That is just as bad as sending goons to bust in your door.

No. It's not as bad, not even close. And if you fools succeed in replacing free speech with state regulated media, we'll find out just how different they are.

Wrong.

The Internet IS a federal regulated media.
There are plenty of private media available, from newspapers to satellite or cable.
But the internet is not private and does not allow anyone renting space on the internet, to discriminate.

And you are wrong about who is the greatest threat.
If not for the threat from private economic sources, we would not have had to fight a civil war, and in fact most of the government would be unnecessary. You seem to have forgotten about abuses like company towns, Pinkerton privacy security goons busting heads, monopolies, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.

Not in most states. And it shouldn't be in any. If I don't like your politics, I won't post them on my webpage. Period.

Political discrimination is illegal in all states.
It has been incorporated under 14th amendment principles.
Whether or not you can censor politics on your webpage depends on if you are open to the public or not, and how much harm you would be causing others.
For example, if your webpage only contains your thoughts, then you are not obligated to be fair to anyone else.
But if you are letting others post, then you can't discriminate and illegal discriminate.

 

[Dadoalex]

Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.
...

Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First.

Oh how do you make it through the day knowing you'll not be able to tweet your latest download of lies and and bigger lies.

Personally, I revel in your pain.
Seriously.
I've watched you subhumans over the last 12 years scream "FIRST" every time a post got deleted or some such. I watched as your behaviors got worse and worse and these companies refused to honor their own ToS.
All that's happening here is these companies are enforcing the ToS
TO WHICH YOU AGREED!!!
I just LOOOOOOOVVVVVVE IRONY

"Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First."
Hilarious. That's exactly how a NAZI official in the German government of 1933 would have describe his position on censorship.

Their TOS are horseshit. They obviously aren't evenly enforced, asshole.

So, again, you demand the government enforce your rights to spew your crap wherever you want by denying their right not not have your filth contaminating their product.

You know what's funny? You don't even see the hypocrisy of your demand.

Your belief that your right to spew filth takes precedence over my right is hilarious.

There is no hypocrisy, NAZI. Facebook and Twitter are government protected monopolies. They have no right to censor their users.

Read the ToS dumbass.

Not only do they have the right, they have a legal obligation.
No one forces you to read or listen to anything I say or write.
No one is forced to publish what I write.
If I violate the ToS I can be rightly shut down.

No go complain to the mods so you can his this removed.
You know, because you're opposed to "censorship."

Their terms of service violate rule 230, moron. They are changed on almost a daily basis, and they are not evenly enforced. Only morons are still swallowing the TOS propaganda.

Only morons think they they have a legal leg to stand on outside the ToS.

But, sonny, lawyer up and go to town.
Because in the end
Your lawyer makes money
Their lawyer makes money
All the experts make money
And
All of it paid by you.

Anything you got left you can feel free to complete the stupid by donating it to Candace what's her ass.

The TOS are subject to whatever regulations are in force, and they don't allow companies exempt under rule 230 to censor their members for perfectly legal statements.

Golly gee whiz here we are in the presence of a LEGAL GOD!!!!!

So, oh master of all things legal, tell us...

Where's the lawsuits?
None filed, none decided.

Not a single court decision in any court anywhere in the country has decided in your favor.

I'm thinking instead of LEGAL GOD, what we have here is legally a moron.

 

[Rigby5]

The Bill of Rights is not originally intended to protect individual rights.
It was intended just to ban federal restrictions of some pre-existing rights, so that states or municipalities would have full jurisdiction over restrictions.

But the 14th amendment started the incorporation process, with the logic that if something is so important the federal government should not infringe, then maybe the states and local should not either?

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.
Not a boss, customer, store, service provider, or anyone at all.
Disney went way over the line and should be prosecuted, in my opinion.

I asked you for a link twice and you never responded.

What’s up with that?

Can you be more specific as to what you want a link for?

{...

Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term freedom of expression is usually used synonymously but, in legal sense, includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[3]

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of 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. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[4]

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[4] With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from foreign countries.
...}

Freedom of speech - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.
...

Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First.

Oh how do you make it through the day knowing you'll not be able to tweet your latest download of lies and and bigger lies.

Personally, I revel in your pain.
Seriously.
I've watched you subhumans over the last 12 years scream "FIRST" every time a post got deleted or some such. I watched as your behaviors got worse and worse and these companies refused to honor their own ToS.
All that's happening here is these companies are enforcing the ToS
TO WHICH YOU AGREED!!!
I just LOOOOOOOVVVVVVE IRONY

"Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First."
Hilarious. That's exactly how a NAZI official in the German government of 1933 would have describe his position on censorship.

Their TOS are horseshit. They obviously aren't evenly enforced, asshole.

So, again, you demand the government enforce your rights to spew your crap wherever you want by denying their right not not have your filth contaminating their product.

You know what's funny? You don't even see the hypocrisy of your demand.

Your belief that your right to spew filth takes precedence over my right is hilarious.

There is no hypocrisy, NAZI. Facebook and Twitter are government protected monopolies. They have no right to censor their users.

Read the ToS dumbass.

Not only do they have the right, they have a legal obligation.
No one forces you to read or listen to anything I say or write.
No one is forced to publish what I write.
If I violate the ToS I can be rightly shut down.

No go complain to the mods so you can his this removed.
You know, because you're opposed to "censorship."

Their terms of service violate rule 230, moron. They are changed on almost a daily basis, and they are not evenly enforced. Only morons are still swallowing the TOS propaganda.

Only morons think they they have a legal leg to stand on outside the ToS.

But, sonny, lawyer up and go to town.
Because in the end
Your lawyer makes money
Their lawyer makes money
All the experts make money
And
All of it paid by you.

Anything you got left you can feel free to complete the stupid by donating it to Candace what's her ass.

The TOS are subject to whatever regulations are in force, and they don't allow companies exempt under rule 230 to censor their members for perfectly legal statements.

Golly gee whiz here we are in the presence of a LEGAL GOD!!!!!

So, oh master of all things legal, tell us...

Where's the lawsuits?
None filed, none decided.

Not a single court decision in any court anywhere in the country has decided in your favor.

I'm thinking instead of LEGAL GOD, what we have here is legally a moron.

Wrong.
The fact the Internet has so far usually been a free-for-all, is due to the lack of regulatory infrastructure.
The fact the government is not following through on it legal responsibilities to protect rights on the internet, does not mean it is legal to discriminate based on political beliefs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, government should decide who can and can't be fired, and why? What else would you like to put the state in charge of?

I would like the government to continue the War on Drugs. The main positive value is that considerably more Progressives then Conservatives use drugs and thus suffer the penalty.

Of course you would – you’re the typical authoritarian conservative.

 

[dblack]

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.

Not in most states. And it shouldn't be in any. If I don't like your politics, I won't post them on my webpage. Period.

Political discrimination is illegal in all states.

Link? Pretty sure you're kidding yourself. is it illegal to discriminate based on political affiliation - Google Search

But if you are letting others post, then you can't discriminate and illegal discriminate.

I think you're full of shit.

 

[dblack]

And you are wrong about who is the greatest threat.

Get back to me when Twitter has the power to throw me in jail if I piss them off.

 

[BlindBoo]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

A web site the public is free to join and free to quit at any time. When you join you agree to their terms.

They haven't been licensed yet.

Wrong.
A web site is a Service Provider, and it HAS been licensed.
I am an network analyst and implement internet and other network protocols, and I can assure you that all internet provided ARE licensed, with signed contracts.
If you have a personal website that is not licensed, than you are actually just a user who is running under the license of the site provider.
It is like you are a renter in an apartment building, so then you did not have to apply for the building permit, follow the rules on plumbing and wiring, etc.
But the owner and builder did.
Same with the internet.
The fact you are too low level of a user to know about internet licensing and FCC regulations, does not mean they are not there.

To do business on the internet on your web site you need business licenses and such but no FCC license is required for websites.


"Now, it must be made clear at the outset that these companies are by no means “unregulated,” in that no legal business in this country is unregulated. For instance Facebook, certainly a social media company, received a record $5 billion fine last year for failure to comply with rules set by the FTC. But not because the company violated its social media regulations — there aren’t any."

Who regulates social media? | TechCrunch

Social media platforms have repeatedly found themselves in the United States government's crosshairs over the last few years, as it has been progressively

techcrunch.com

Facebook and others are bound by the same rules that most companies must follow, such as generally agreed-upon definitions of fair business practices, truth in advertising, and so on. But industries like medicine, energy, alcohol and automotive have additional rules, indeed entire agencies, specific to them; not so with social media companies.

I say “social media” rather than “tech” because the latter is much too broad a concept to have a single regulator. Although Google and Amazon (and Airbnb, and Uber, and so on) need new regulation as well, they may require a different specialist, like an algorithmic accountability office or online retail antitrust commission. (Inasmuch as tech companies act within regulated industries, such as Google in broadband, they are already regulated as such.)

Social media can roughly be defined as platforms where people sign up to communicate and share messages and media, and that’s quite broad enough already without adding in things like ad marketplaces, competition quashing and other serious issues.

Who, then, regulates these social media companies? For the purposes of the U.S., there are four main directions from which meaningful limitations or policing may emerge, but each one has serious limitations, and none was actually created for the task.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Discrimination of any kind is illegal, period.
If you are open to the public, then you can not discriminate.
This is no different from a lunch counter in Alabama that does not want to serve Blacks.
The fact there are specific groups who are listed as it being illegal to discriminate against, does in no way imply that all other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.

How do you figure?

Political affiliation, for example, isn’t a protected class.

It's next.

lol

Wrong.

Political affiliation is protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of association.

 

[dblack]

Discrimination of any kind is illegal, period.
If you are open to the public, then you can not discriminate.
This is no different from a lunch counter in Alabama that does not want to serve Blacks.
The fact there are specific groups who are listed as it being illegal to discriminate against, does in no way imply that all other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.

How do you figure?

Political affiliation, for example, isn’t a protected class.

It's next.

lol

Wrong.

Political affiliation is protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of association.

Wrong. Fallacy. Blah. Pompous horseshit. I'm C.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The n-word is not protected speech because it is not political but hate speech intended to cause harm and even deliberately incite violence.

Wrong.

The N-word is protected speech, as is all hate speech.

Hate speech is not entitled to Constitutional protections when is advocates for imminent lawlessness or violence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The n-word is not protected speech because it is not political but hate speech intended to cause harm and even deliberately incite violence.

I agree. Actual Hate Speech is wrong and should be subject to disciplinary sanctions.

But 90% of those cancelled have not committed actual Hate Speech.

Nonsense.

There’s no such thing as ‘actual’ hate speech.

And no one has been ‘canceled’; private media are at liberty to edit content as they see fit, how content is edited in no manner constitutes a ‘violation’ of free speech.

Private social media are also at liberty to determine who will participate and exclude whomever they wish.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are simply exercising our Freedom by supporting any legislation or lawsuit to slow down Totalitarian Social Media.

You’re simply exhibiting your ignorance of the First Amendment and advocacy of enacting legislation intended to violate the First Amendment.

Social media are not ‘totalitarian’ – the notion is as ignorant as it is wrong and ridiculous.

Social media aren’t government, only government has the potential of being totalitarian.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities – such as social media.

What’s totalitarian is the right’s desire to use the power and authority of government to enact punitive measures against private social media in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[dblack]

We are simply exercising our Freedom by supporting any legislation or lawsuit to slow down Totalitarian Social Media.

You’re simply exhibiting your ignorance of the First Amendment and advocacy of enacting legislation intended to violate the First Amendment.

Social media are not ‘totalitarian’ – the notion is as ignorant as it is wrong and ridiculous.

Social media aren’t government, only government has the potential of being totalitarian.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities – such as social media.

What’s totalitarian is the right’s desire to use the power and authority of government to enact punitive measures against private social media in violation of the First Amendment.

And I'd bet my life savings that you'd be making exactly the opposite argument if social media leaned right.

Just sayin'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The First Amendment is useless.”

Actually not.

It’s still very useful in preventing authoritarian conservatives from violating citizens' right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.