Would you be happy if your opponents were driven offline?

[sparky]

What is your definition?

more, just who gets to do the defining forkup
leaving it up to government is simply asking for trouble....
~S~

 

[forkup]

more, just who gets to do the defining forkup
leaving it up to government is simply asking for trouble....
~S~

Different people.

Dictionaries purely as a practical matter. When we are talking social media companies. They do. Something everybody participating agrees with considering they sign terms of service when they join. In a government setting. Usually the courts. It very much depends on the setting.

My point is this. Speech by it's nature carries within it the possibility to do great harm, as well as good. It is not at all inappropriate to stop certain types of speech. If you think real hard you undoubtedly will find instances when it is necessary. A person pretending to be a Nigerian Prince who is scamming an old lady out of her life savings is also just "speaking", I doubt you find it inappropriate that he is arrested by the government as a result?

It is true that it is something that has to be approached with care, but you cannot just call all speech protected.

 

[1srelluc]

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm happy when anyone is marginalized who willfully puts out disinformation.

That is misguided though.

At one time it would have been 'misinformation' to declare black and white people are of equal value. The problem with actively marginalizing 'disinformation' through a systemic process is the inability to actually identify misinformation and facts.

 

[forkup]

sparky

That is misguided though.

At one time it would have been 'misinformation' to declare black and white people are of equal value. The problem with actively marginalizing 'disinformation' through a systemic process is the inability to actually identify misinformation and facts.

I don't think it is all that hard. If you say for instance there is massive voter fraud, but you lose every court case trying to establish it, insisting it happened can be considered "misinformation" in my book. At least in practise.

If someone claims they have seen Santa Clause. Common sense dictates that I consider that statement untrue.

I don't need to be absolutely certain of something to deem it to be misinformation. There is of course always the possibility that I am wrong but certain kinds of misinformation are dangerous enough to consider actively marginalising it as appropriate.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Differences are what makes the world interesting. Just remember you don’t have to get fighting mad at people who disagree with you.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I have a fear of Totalitarianism too. The problem I have is that you seem to identify a problem leading to it that isn't a problem.

I'll say it like this. I can't help but to notice that in your previous OP you identified Liberals as those wanting to stifle Conservatives speech by monopolising the entire Internet. A highly dubious hypothetical in my opinion. An opinion I might add you didn't try to rebut.

On the other hand it is not hypothetical at all to state. That unfounded claims of voter fraud from Conservatives propogated on the same Internet led to an assault on the Capitol for the stated purpose of preventing the peaceful transition of power. This seems a much more serious and infinitly less hypothetical step towards authoritarianism.

As we speak the Presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential ticket has called for the abandonment of the Constitution, and for the loser of a race for Governor to be "installed".

Again, I think your fear of authoritarianism is directed at the wrong problem, and people.

dentified Liberals as those wanting to stifle Conservatives speech by monopolising the entire Internet. A highly dubious hypothetical in my opinion.

Of course the Marxists cant bring anything good to the argument, other than "death of the unborn and born, high taxes and energy, complete government take over of everything that people own", while those on the right, just want "The rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". The last one the Marxists/Democrats can never achieve because they have been taught to be victims, thus slaves of the Democrat party.

 

[forkup]

Of course the Marxists cant bring anything good to the argument, other than "death of the unborn and born, high taxes and energy, complete government take over of everything that people own", while those on the right, just want "The rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". The last one the Marxists/Democrats can never achieve because they have been taught to be victims, thus slaves of the Democrat party.

View attachment 734904

Interesting. It's always nice to see people responding to arguments I didn't make. I'm sure you'll do well fighting all these strawmen. Have fun.

 

[Resnic]

No.

Free speech is something all Americans have a constitutional right to. Even if I don't agree with someone else they have a right to speak just like I do.

But if they want to censor me and tell me I can't have free speech they should be denied that right. Either it's all ok or none of it's ok.

 

[forkup]

No.

Free speech is something all Americans have a constitutional right to. Even if I don't agree with someone else they have a right to speak just like I do.

But if they want to censor me and tell me I can't have free speech they should be denied that right. Either it's all ok or none of it's ok.

Again. Free speech has limits. Necessary limits. This is so because "speech" can hurt.

You can not lie in front of a judge for instance. Doing so is perjury and is punishable.

Purposely lying to people for personal gain quite often is fraud. This is punishable.

Spreading lies about people can be considered defamation and is punishable.

Etc. Etc.

This is in a government setting. Where the Constitution guarantees maximum protection for your speech but as I demonstrated it is not endless.

You, I suspect are talking about something else. You are talking about having the right as an individual to say whatever you want. While at the same time denying the right of other people to respond to that by denying you services they control. Even though before using those services you agreed to letting them moderate what you say.

If I come in your house and you ask me to take of my shoes, and I refuse. I think you have the right to deny me entry don't you think? Especially if before I even knocked on your door I was warned that that is something you wanted.

To make it less hypothetical. Kanye was just banned from twitter for posting he liked Hitler and a Swastika. You might find that out of line. I personally look at it this way. Twitter creates revenue by advertising. If it allows that stuff, advertisers will find twitter less attractive as a platform for advertising. This might ultimately cause twitter to go under. Is Kanye West's free speech more important than the right of a company to exist?

These are not straight forward questions but asking them is important.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Interesting. It's always nice to see people responding to arguments I didn't make. I'm sure you'll do well fighting all these strawmen. Have fun.

And Marxists always try to divert the issue by inserting said strawman. The intelligent people in the country have seen over the past few years how the Marxists not only have tried to "Fundamentally Transform America into a 3rd world shithole", but like all Marxists countries, steal the last 3 elections, so they can take power and steal from US our wealth.

 

[BackAgain]

Would you be happy if your opponents were driven offline?​

Would it require the suspension of laws, rules and any Constitutional provisions?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Again. Free speech has limits. Necessary limits. This is so because "speech" can hurt.

You can not lie in front of a judge for instance. Doing so is perjury and is punishable.

Purposely lying to people for personal gain quite often is fraud. This is punishable.

Spreading lies about people can be considered defamation and is punishable.

Etc. Etc.

This is in a government setting. Where the Constitution guarantees maximum protection for your speech but as I demonstrated it is not endless.

You, I suspect are talking about something else. You are talking about having the right as an individual to say whatever you want. While at the same time denying the right of other people to respond to that by denying you services they control. Even though before using those services you agreed to letting them moderate what you say.

If I come in your house and you ask me to take of my shoes, and I refuse. I think you have the right to deny me entry don't you think? Especially if before I even knocked on your door I was warned that that is something you wanted.

To make it less hypothetical. Kanye was just banned from twitter for posting he liked Hitler and a Swastika. You might find that out of line. I personally look at it this way. Twitter creates revenue by advertising. If it allows that stuff, advertisers will find twitter less attractive as a platform for advertising. This might ultimately cause twitter to go under. Is Kanye West's free speech more important than the right of a company to exist?

These are not straight forward questions but asking them is important.

The first amendment was not to protect polite speech, but speech that people needed to hear and then decide for themselves if it is good or bad. But when you have thought police, then they decide what people should hear, and most of the time it is how wonderful Marxism is. That is a destructive police force.

 

[Indeependent]

This is the question for both Liberals and Conservatives. Suppose you win the Culture War. Your party can pressure all Social Media, web hosting providers, DDoS mitigation companies to ban your opponents.

The losers of Culture War could try to set up their own forum, but no one would give them web hosting or DDoS mitigation for fear of economic repercussions from your side. Are you happy?

It’s called Capitalism and it works.

 

[Billiejeens]

I'll be happy when those liberal lemmings finally walk off the cliff, hopefully they won't drag everyone else over.

Offline - minor.

Get them off the fucking planet.

 

[Billiejeens]

That is misguided though.

At one time it would have been 'misinformation' to declare black and white people are of equal value. The problem with actively marginalizing 'disinformation' through a systemic process is the inability to actually identify misinformation and facts.

Candy is simple.
You are talking about higher level thinking.

 

[BlindBoo]

No. Blanket bans, like blanket pardons, or blanket privileges to a select few are a bad things in a free society.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sure, the problem is the political system isn't set up for this.

Which is why I push Proportional Representation. It's a system that makes that strength. FPTP destroys it.

All for it. It should be employed for the House. It would give the two party system fits, and give other parties power. Power to fight special interests which seem to have the two parties captive.

 

[forkup]

The first amendment was not to protect polite speech, but speech that people needed to hear and then decide for themselves if it is good or bad. But when you have thought police, then they decide what people should hear, and most of the time it is how wonderful Marxism is. That is a destructive police force.

The first amendment controls the relationship between individuals and the government. It has no bearing on speech between individuals.

A good tip when citing the Constitution is actually trying to understand it's content.

 

[BlindBoo]

Free speech is something all Americans have a constitutional right to.

It doesn't mean that you have the right to be listened too.

Elon Musk can spend 40 billion on a platform from which he can be heard. Is that free speech? I have the right to ignore him.

When they developed the 'Fairness Doctrine" a hundred years ago it was because Congress realized the danger of one group getting access to a nation wide network and being able to broadcast the same political perspective 24/7/365. After RayGun gutted it, that behavior was not prohibited even on public air waves, or the internet. So what's the beef? Can private entities/companies publish freely or are they constrained by someone or some policy like the Fairness Doctine?