Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest KJP

Censorship

Recommended Posts

Boy some of you folks never miss a chance to take a generic thread and make it about politics.

 

You're referring to Ram, right?  Because he's the one who posted a heavily politically slanted article after 7 days of no posts in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing to me how often the people that are the loudest about less government are the first to scream for more of it....but only when it agrees with their own bias.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

This is a shockingly ironic stance given that your argument here is a simple ad hominem attack on the Media Research Center rather than an argument against their findings. That sort of knee jerk, attack-the-messenger reaction is a clear indication of a lack of critical thinking skills, and further, a driving force in the hyper-partisanship our country is currently experiencing. You aren't really thinking critically if you're dismissing information outright.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

This is a shockingly ironic stance given that your argument here is a simple ad hominem attack on the Media Research Center rather than an argument against their findings. That sort of knee jerk, attack-the-messenger reaction is a clear indication of a lack of critical thinking skills, and further, a driving force in the hyper-partisanship our country is currently experiencing. You aren't really thinking critically if you're dismissing information outright.

 

 

Nothing in the article you posted is sourced.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

This is a shockingly ironic stance given that your argument here is a simple ad hominem attack on the Media Research Center rather than an argument against their findings. That sort of knee jerk, attack-the-messenger reaction is a clear indication of a lack of critical thinking skills, and further, a driving force in the hyper-partisanship our country is currently experiencing. You aren't really thinking critically if you're dismissing information outright.

 

Talk about shockingly ironic...

 

From the article you posted...

 

Relying on sites like Snopes, which has a clear liberal bias

 

What say you about "attacking the messenger"?  They give no proof or evidence of Snopes having a liberal bias, so you just have to believe what they say.  Maybe your article's author is the one lacking critical thinking skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservatives are trying to peddle ideas that are unpopular. Instead of introspection, they decide that everyone is against them.  Facts, google, history books, etc.  It's rather sad what has happened to conservatives.  But they've been laying this victim complex for decades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article does a great job of capturing just how pervasive left wing censorship has become on the internet:

 

CENSORED! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/ashley-rae-goldenberg/2018/04/16/censored-how-online-media-companies-are-suppressing

 

Like it or not, social media is the communication form of the future — not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Just Facebook and Twitter combined reach 1.8 billion people. More than two-thirds of all Americans (68 percent) use Facebook. YouTube is pushing out TV as the most popular place to watch video. Google is the No. 1 search engine in both the U.S. and the world.

 

War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing — badly. If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off from conservative ideas and conservative media.

 

It’s the new battleground of media bias. But it’s worse. That bias is not a war of ideas. It’s a war against ideas. It’s a clear effort to censor the conservative worldview from the public conversation.

 

The Media Research Center has undertaken an extensive study of the problem at major tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube — and the results are far more troubling than most conservatives realize. Here are some of the key findings:

 

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media."[1]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

 

Yeah, not buying that nonsense.

 

Well, they aren't wrong....liberalism has captured the media channels to the extent that anyone going against the MSM narrative are classified conspiracy theorists. 

 

I've also noticed that since the 2013 NDAA (https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-2013-ndaa-thornberry-amendment-domestic-propaganda-disinformation.t592/), the amount of misinformation has been increasingly more present, to the extent that I personally don't tend to trust anything the media says and take public opinions with grain of salt, as they are usually part of a wider narrative or agenda.

 

Let's use some critical thinking to discern whether or elected public officials are using NDAA as a way to control national narratives or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

This is a shockingly ironic stance given that your argument here is a simple ad hominem attack on the Media Research Center rather than an argument against their findings. That sort of knee jerk, attack-the-messenger reaction is a clear indication of a lack of critical thinking skills, and further, a driving force in the hyper-partisanship our country is currently experiencing. You aren't really thinking critically if you're dismissing information outright.

 

 

Nothing in the article you posted is sourced.

 

And any person who has a lick of critical thinking skills would have noticed this.


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

Republicans are the ones usually pushing against liberal arts which I teaches one how to think.

 

Really?  Liberal arts teaches one how to think?  But science/math teach problem solving....

 

Math and science deal with facts, and yet they’re rejected by the Right all the time. 

 

Boy some of you folks never miss a chance to take a generic thread and make it about politics.  I mean, go back & re-read the statement and insert "LEFT" or "DEMOCRAT" instead of "RIGHT" or "Republican".  It sounds stupid, doesn't it?

 

It sounds stupid because those things are not true of democrats.

 

what's stupid is trying to paint any one group, be it left or right, with such a broad brush.  Its actually small minded, to try and lump large groups of people into a certain associated behavior or idea.  It's basically the same mindset as racism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

This is a shockingly ironic stance given that your argument here is a simple ad hominem attack on the Media Research Center rather than an argument against their findings. That sort of knee jerk, attack-the-messenger reaction is a clear indication of a lack of critical thinking skills, and further, a driving force in the hyper-partisanship our country is currently experiencing. You aren't really thinking critically if you're dismissing information outright.

 

 

Nothing in the article you posted is sourced.

 

And any person who has a lick of critical thinking skills would have noticed this.

 

The subtitle reads "Executive Summary (Full Special Report can be found here)" and it links to the full 56 page report. That's the source. Within the report, you'll find subsequent sources. It's the second thing on the page - not sure how you all missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

This is a shockingly ironic stance given that your argument here is a simple ad hominem attack on the Media Research Center rather than an argument against their findings. That sort of knee jerk, attack-the-messenger reaction is a clear indication of a lack of critical thinking skills, and further, a driving force in the hyper-partisanship our country is currently experiencing. You aren't really thinking critically if you're dismissing information outright.

 

 

Nothing in the article you posted is sourced.

 

And any person who has a lick of critical thinking skills would have noticed this.

 

The subtitle reads "Executive Summary (Full Special Report can be found here)" and it links to the full 56 page report. That's the source. Within the report, you'll find subsequent sources. It's the second thing on the page - not sure how you all missed it.

 

I clicked on this:

 

Executive Summary (Full Special Report can be found here.)

 

Which gave me this - https://www.mrc.org/caoc#coalition

 

There's nothing there.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

This is a shockingly ironic stance given that your argument here is a simple ad hominem attack on the Media Research Center rather than an argument against their findings. That sort of knee jerk, attack-the-messenger reaction is a clear indication of a lack of critical thinking skills, and further, a driving force in the hyper-partisanship our country is currently experiencing. You aren't really thinking critically if you're dismissing information outright.

 

 

Nothing in the article you posted is sourced.

 

And any person who has a lick of critical thinking skills would have noticed this.

 

The subtitle reads "Executive Summary (Full Special Report can be found here)" and it links to the full 56 page report. That's the source. Within the report, you'll find subsequent sources. It's the second thing on the page - not sure how you all missed it.

 

I clicked on this:

 

Executive Summary (Full Special Report can be found here.)

 

Which gave me this - https://www.mrc.org/caoc#coalition

 

There's nothing there.

 

You have to fill out the email form so you can get all of their whiny emails about how everyone is out to get conservatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm supposed to trust some far-right group with my information just to find out how/if they sourced everything they claim?

 

Ram, still waiting to hear why you are now in favor of regulation when you seem to have been a proponent of deregulation for so long.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm supposed to trust some far-right group with my information just to find out how/if they sourced everything they claim?

 

 

 

If you don't subscribe, it is an ATTACK on Traditional values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

Republicans are the ones usually pushing against liberal arts which I teaches one how to think.

 

Really?  Liberal arts teaches one how to think?  But science/math teach problem solving....

 

Math and science deal with facts, and yet they’re rejected by the Right all the time. 

 

Boy some of you folks never miss a chance to take a generic thread and make it about politics.  I mean, go back & re-read the statement and insert "LEFT" or "DEMOCRAT" instead of "RIGHT" or "Republican".  It sounds stupid, doesn't it?

 

It sounds stupid because those things are not true of democrats.

 

what's stupid is trying to paint any one group, be it left or right, with such a broad brush.  Its actually small minded, to try and lump large groups of people into a certain associated behavior or idea.  It's basically the same mindset as racism.

 

No, no it's not. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. You choose to affiliate yourself with a political party and by doing so you are endorsing their platform. You are picking a side, and that side stands for something. Being black or white or any race doesn't tell me anything about your moral character, but being a Republican tells me you are okay with the behavior and actions of the Republican Party.

 

The fact that you think it is the same as racism is astonishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just shows once again how critical thinking skills needs to be taught in schools.  What is the point in teaching everything else and then having people graduating as complete rubes that can be fooled even the simplest of conspiracy theories?

 

Republicans are the ones usually pushing against liberal arts which I teaches one how to think.

 

Really?  Liberal arts teaches one how to think?  But science/math teach problem solving....

 

Math and science deal with facts, and yet they’re rejected by the Right all the time. 

 

Boy some of you folks never miss a chance to take a generic thread and make it about politics.  I mean, go back & re-read the statement and insert "LEFT" or "DEMOCRAT" instead of "RIGHT" or "Republican".  It sounds stupid, doesn't it?

 

It sounds stupid because those things are not true of democrats.

 

what's stupid is trying to paint any one group, be it left or right, with such a broad brush.  Its actually small minded, to try and lump large groups of people into a certain associated behavior or idea.  It's basically the same mindset as racism.

 

No, no it's not. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. You choose to affiliate yourself with a political party and by doing so you are endorsing their platform. You are picking a side, and that side stands for something. Being black or white or any race doesn't tell me anything about your moral character, but being a Republican tells me you are okay with the behavior and actions of the Republican Party.

 

The fact that you think it is the same as racism is astonishing.

 

huh? where in the Republican platform is racism "endorsed?"

 

https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

 

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no it's not. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. You choose to affiliate yourself with a political party and by doing so you are endorsing their platform. You are picking a side, and that side stands for something. Being black or white or any race doesn't tell me anything about your moral character, but being a Republican tells me you are okay with the behavior and actions of the Republican Party.

 

The fact that you think it is the same as racism is astonishing.

 

huh? where in the Republican platform is racism "endorsed?"

 

https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

 

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today."

 

Nice straw-man.  He never said it was.  But he said you're OK with "the behavior and actions of the Republican Party."  I guess no one would really blame you for assuming that to include racism, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no it's not. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. You choose to affiliate yourself with a political party and by doing so you are endorsing their platform. You are picking a side, and that side stands for something. Being black or white or any race doesn't tell me anything about your moral character, but being a Republican tells me you are okay with the behavior and actions of the Republican Party.

 

The fact that you think it is the same as racism is astonishing.

 

huh? where in the Republican platform is racism "endorsed?"

 

https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

 

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today."

 

Nice straw-man.  He never said it was.  But he said you're OK with "the behavior and actions of the Republican Party."  I guess no one would really blame you for assuming that to include racism, though.

 

in the context of his comments it was clearly implied, but I'm glad I could clarify that the Republican platform not only does not equivocate on racism, but vigorously advocates against it, as well as all forms of discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no it's not. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. You choose to affiliate yourself with a political party and by doing so you are endorsing their platform. You are picking a side, and that side stands for something. Being black or white or any race doesn't tell me anything about your moral character, but being a Republican tells me you are okay with the behavior and actions of the Republican Party.

 

The fact that you think it is the same as racism is astonishing.

 

huh? where in the Republican platform is racism "endorsed?"

 

https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

 

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today."

 

Nice straw-man.  He never said it was.  But he said you're OK with "the behavior and actions of the Republican Party."  I guess no one would really blame you for assuming that to include racism, though.

 

in the context of his comments it was clearly implied, but I'm glad I could clarify that the Republican platform not only does not equivocate on racism, but vigorously advocates against it, as well as all forms of discrimination.

 

No it wasn't. The actions of this president are unequivocally racist and all elected members of the GOP are complicit. But nowhere did I say or imply that racism is a part of their written platform. In fact, I was referring to the actions of the GOP more broadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no it's not. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. You choose to affiliate yourself with a political party and by doing so you are endorsing their platform. You are picking a side, and that side stands for something. Being black or white or any race doesn't tell me anything about your moral character, but being a Republican tells me you are okay with the behavior and actions of the Republican Party.

 

The fact that you think it is the same as racism is astonishing.

 

huh? where in the Republican platform is racism "endorsed?"

 

https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

 

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today."

 

Nice straw-man.  He never said it was.  But he said you're OK with "the behavior and actions of the Republican Party."  I guess no one would really blame you for assuming that to include racism, though.

 

in the context of his comments it was clearly implied, but I'm glad I could clarify that the Republican platform not only does not equivocate on racism, but vigorously advocates against it, as well as all forms of discrimination.

 

All forms? Where's the statement against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity? Or discrimination against Democrats, for that matter.

 

Also, I don't see that implication tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm supposed to trust some far-right group with my information just to find out how/if they sourced everything they claim?

 

Ram, still waiting to hear why you are now in favor of regulation when you seem to have been a proponent of deregulation for so long.

 

Silence is agreement per the Ram rule.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no it's not. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. You choose to affiliate yourself with a political party and by doing so you are endorsing their platform. You are picking a side, and that side stands for something. Being black or white or any race doesn't tell me anything about your moral character, but being a Republican tells me you are okay with the behavior and actions of the Republican Party.

 

The fact that you think it is the same as racism is astonishing.

 

huh? where in the Republican platform is racism "endorsed?"

 

https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

 

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to Americas difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today."

 

Nice straw-man.  He never said it was.  But he said you're OK with "the behavior and actions of the Republican Party."  I guess no one would really blame you for assuming that to include racism, though.

 

in the context of his comments it was clearly implied, but I'm glad I could clarify that the Republican platform not only does not equivocate on racism, but vigorously advocates against it, as well as all forms of discrimination.

 

All forms? Where's the statement against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity? Or discrimination against Democrats, for that matter.

 

Also, I don't see that implication tbh.

 

Neither democrats nor republicans are a class of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I didn't say that it was censored. Let me explain this so that even trolls can understand.

 

  • Conservatives cry that that social media censors them.
  • Conservative voices are actually over-represented on Facebook.
  • Hence, conservatives pretend that they get censored because they enjoy victimhood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Twitter user was suspended for 'glorifying violence' after posting exactly what Trump tweets

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-donald-trump-suspendthepres-experiment-policies-suspension-glorifying-violence-2020-6

 

Facebook page that copies President Trump's posts gets flagged for violence – when the president's didn't

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-donald-trump-copy-account-flagged-inciting-violence/


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"free speech warrior" conservatives have been pumping Parler as an alternative to Twitter. The professional victim crowd (Nunes, Cruz, et al.) say that Twitter censors and censorship is bad.  I expect them to call out Parler now for their censorship. How long will it take for Parler to become a white supremacy safe space like all other conservative "free speech" zones?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you guys see that Reddit banned The Donald and YouTube kicked off Richard Spencer, David Duke, and Stefan Molyneux today? A good day for deplatforming Nazis. Living in a society which has free speech as a first principle, we need private institutions such as publishers and newspapers and now social media sites to deplatform dangerous and hateful ideologies. And it's up to activists to pressure them to do so. I am hopeful that the tech industry begrudgingly will start to get its act together and practice social responsibility, albeit a few years too late. 

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, freefourur said:

"free speech warrior" conservatives have been pumping Parler as an alternative to Twitter. The professional victim crowd (Nunes, Cruz, et al.) say that Twitter censors and censorship is bad.  I expect them to call out Parler now for their censorship. How long will it take for Parler to become a white supremacy safe space like all other conservative "free speech" zones?

 

 

 

I had to Wiki this "Parlor."  It looks cheap.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

Did you guys see that Reddit banned The Donald and YouTube kicked off Richard Spencer, David Duke, and Stefan Molyneux today? A good day for deplatforming Nazis. Living in a society which has free speech as a first principle, we private institutions such as publishers and newspapers and now social media sites to deplatform dangerous and hateful ideologies. And it's up to activists to pressure them to do so. I am hopeful that the tech industry begrudgingly will start to get its act together and practice social responsibility, albeit a few years too late. 

 

I feel like Facebook has gotten a lot better at targeting ads lately since for me it went from mostly Wal-Mart ads to trying to get me to sign up for autocross events in my area. Is this in preparation for a tapering off of Facebook constantly fellating hillbillies? I'm not sure. It's like they only really had Wal-Mart in their toolbox so they had to amplify things that hillbillies liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mu2010 said:

Did you guys see that Reddit banned The Donald and YouTube kicked off Richard Spencer, David Duke, and Stefan Molyneux today? A good day for deplatforming Nazis. Living in a society which has free speech as a first principle, we need private institutions such as publishers and newspapers and now social media sites to deplatform dangerous and hateful ideologies. And it's up to activists to pressure them to do so. I am hopeful that the tech industry begrudgingly will start to get its act together and practice social responsibility, albeit a few years too late. 

 

The statement I bolded is incredibly ironic. If our society really held free speech as a principle, we wouldn't sit idly by (or even cheer from the sidelines) while a handful of corporations that control the bulk of modern speech squash ideas they don't like. It's quite literally the exact opposite of free speech.

 

The far left seems to view free speech as simply speech being protected from the government. They view it as a regulation they should try their best to skirt, they do not view it as a greater concept or principle. This is evidenced by the fact that every step corporate media takes to silence right-wing political views from the internet is met with great joy and excitement. The opposite would be true if folks actually cared about free speech.

 

This really is a shame, because I've always felt it is one of the most fundamental of human rights. As we progress through the 21st century, it's becoming clear that the biggest threat to this fundamental human right is no longer the government (whom the Constitution has done a great job of protecting us from), it's corporate media, specifically those who control digital communications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

The statement I bolded is incredibly ironic. If our society really held free speech as a principle, we wouldn't sit idly by (or even cheer from the sidelines) while a handful of corporations that control the bulk of modern speech squash ideas they don't like. It's quite literally the exact opposite of free speech.

 

The far left seems to view free speech as simply speech being protected from the government. They view it as a regulation they should try their best to skirt, they do not view it as a greater concept or principle. This is evidenced by the fact that every step corporate media takes to silence right-wing political views from the internet is met with great joy and excitement. The opposite would be true if folks actually cared about free speech.

 

This really is a shame, because I've always felt it is one of the most fundamental of human rights. As we progress through the 21st century, it's becoming clear that the biggest threat to this fundamental human right is no longer the government (whom the Constitution has done a great job of protecting us from), it's corporate media, specifically those who control digital communications.

 

Plenty of liberals feel this way about corporate speech. In fact, I'd say most do. Simply replace "silencing right-wing political views" with "manipulating people".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

The statement I bolded is incredibly ironic. If our society really held free speech as a principle, we wouldn't sit idly by (or even cheer from the sidelines) while a handful of corporations that control the bulk of modern speech squash ideas they don't like. It's quite literally the exact opposite of free speech.

 

What you're describing isn't an issue of free speech.  But, I suppose when you have no good ideas to stand on, you have to resort to twisting the definition to fit your aggrieved politics narrative.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ram23 said:

The far left seems to view free speech as simply speech being protected from the government.

 

As far as how it's been interpreted by courts over our entire history, that is the legally correct view. As far as right-wing/libertarianism has always viewed the bill of rights, it's also the correct view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

As far as how it's been interpreted by courts over our entire history, that is the legally correct view. As far as right-wing/libertarianism has always viewed the bill of rights, it's also the correct view.

 

That's an aside - the discussion isn't about the laws protecting free speech, it's about the principle (your word) of free speech. If you truly believe in the principle, the idea itself, you'd object to all affronts to free speech, not just government ones.

 

To put it another way - can digital communications platforms censor political speech they don't like from their websites? Sure they can. Should they? If you believe in free speech, the answer is a resounding "no." If you say "yes," then you don't really care about free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

That's an aside - the discussion isn't about the laws protecting free speech, it's about the principle (your word) of free speech. If you truly believe in the principle, the idea itself, you'd object to all affronts to free speech, not just government ones.

 

To put it another way - can digital communications platforms censor political speech they don't like from their websites? Sure they can. Should they? If you believe in free speech, the answer is a resounding "no." If you say "yes," then you don't really care about free speech.

 

You present a false choice. Most free speech warriors don't really understand how free speech works. You see, the social media platform has freedom of speech. They can allow or remove any speech they wish to on the platform they own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

 

That's an aside - the discussion isn't about the laws protecting free speech, it's about the principle (your word) of free speech. If you truly believe in the principle, the idea itself, you'd object to all affronts to free speech, not just government ones.

 

To put it another way - can digital communications platforms censor political speech they don't like from their websites? Sure they can. Should they? If you believe in free speech, the answer is a resounding "no." If you say "yes," then you don't really care about free speech.

 

The principle is that government doesn't suppress speech. Sometimes institutions need to step in, do their civic and moral duty and enforce norms as the newspapers and TV journalists did for much of the 20th century. This has been a long-discussed aspect of free speech. I can recall these discussions in my own education, which took place 10-15 years ago long before this became a flashpoint.

 

I am talking about open Nazis here, who were and are succeeding in roping in and infecting many young minds. There is no principle in the history of western political thought that states that publicly-owned corporations should be giving them megaphones.

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, freefourur said:

You present a false choice. Most free speech warriors don't really understand how free speech works. You see, the social media platform has freedom of speech. They can allow or remove any speech they wish to on the platform they own. 

 

Now you're touching on the platform vs. publisher debate. If they're censoring certain political speech on their websites under the guise of free speech, they aren't running "platforms," they're publishing content because they're choosing what gets put onto the site and what doesn't. They certainly can do that, but they need to assume all the legal liabilities that publishers have. If they want to own platforms, said platforms must transmit all speech regardless of content. Hopefully Trump is able to get this sorted out in his next term - the current House makeup likely wouldn't allow it because too many Democrats are anti-free speech at the moment.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

Hopefully Trump is able to get this sorted out in his next term - the current House makeup likely wouldn't allow it because too many Democrats are anti-free speech at the moment.

 

Republicans, led by Trump, want to make burning a U.S. flag illegal.  Is that not a form of free speech?  72% of Republicans support such a move.  Trump suggested - and >50% of Republicans support - stripping flag burners of their U.S. citizenship.

 

Half of Republicans would support banning the construction of mosques in their community.

 

Nearly 2/3 of Republicans agree with Trump's view that the "press is the enemy of the people."

 

One day you will actually research an issue before posting about it.  Today wasn't that day, apparently.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

Now you're touching on the platform vs. publisher debate. If they're censoring certain political speech on their websites under the guise of free speech, they aren't running "platforms," they're publishing content because they're choosing what gets put onto the site and what doesn't. They certainly can do that, but they need to assume all the legal liabilities that publishers have. If they want to own platforms, said platforms must transmit all speech regardless of content. Hopefully Trump is able to get this sorted out in his next term - the current House makeup likely wouldn't allow it because too many Democrats are anti-free speech at the moment.

 

 

 

 

Your understanding is not correct. Anyone running a platform can remove as they please. It does not make them a publisher at all. 

 

Learn about what you are speaking of and don't just mimic professional conservative victims who are working the refs. 

 

You still haven't answered my question about Parler. But it doesn't fit the conservictim narrative so you choose to ignore it.

 

Here is a nice article on Section 230.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview

Edited by freefourur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...