Free Speech?

[bannination]

There's a lot of talk about blocking fake news especially centering around facebook, etc. While these are private corporations and can absolutely censor anything they want - is the action ethical, and are the people asking corporations to silence people ethical?

I understand the incredible damage that "fake news" is doing to people that can't critically think.... but is it really anyone's job to vet news besides the reader themselves?

I think its an interesting issue, and I can sympathize with people supporting both sides of the issue. What are your thoughts? Am I missing a reason on why I should lean on one side or the other?

[O Really]

Free Speech does not include the right to intentionally defraud. If you write something as an expression of opinion, maybe we let it go even if it's heinous. (support of white supremacy) If you write something that you have a reasonable belief to be true (even if it's not), maybe we let it go even if it shows you to be an idiot. (climate change deniers) But if you write something you know to be false, and you write it with the intent or likelihood it will influence others' actions or cost them money, then maybe it's the responsible thing for a public platform to boot you. Trump has diluted the term "fake news" to the point it has no real meaning. Unintentional inaccurate news isn't necessarily "fake." (Melania has a body double). Made up shit is fake. (Paul Ryan had back surgery two years ago that removed his backbone.) Oh, wait.

[billy.pilgrim]

Just wait for a James O'Keefe type to start putting out fake videos that look like the real thing.
How about "Under the Pizza Parlor with Hillary" hosted by Alex Jones

[Vrede too]

Idk, glad I'm not deciding. At one time I would have considered myself a 1st Amendment absolutist, even for large outlets that don't have to adhere to the 1st Amendment principle by law. However, it's really ugly out there. People posting and sharing stuff that's clearly destructive to our society, often disguising their true IDs and intentions. Some considerations:

It's said that the best antidote for bad actors is to shine a light on them, not to let them lurk in the shadows.

There are relatively few media platforms that almost EVERYONE use, like YT and Facebook.

The large media platforms don't control the web, though. If some or all of Alex Jones' videos are removed by YT and Facebook, he still has his own site and other smaller ones to post to.

Maybe it's good for some adults to act as theoretically neutral referees. People can then take their opinions into account if accessing the material elsewhere.

The companies have to be responsive to consumers. They risk negative PR if they host offensive stuff AND if they are too heavy handed in their censorship. Maybe the commons will keep them within reasonable boundaries.

It might all backfire. I'm not going to search them out, but I am a bit curious what's on the four Alex Jones videos, and those censored can claim to be victims.

Even here boundaries have been set - no outing real IDs/doxxing, no physical threats, no stalking, no real world punishments like threatening a poster's job. I suspect there would be others that we haven't faced like, say, advocating terrorism, rape, child abuse, etc.

[billy.pilgrim]

Madison couldn't begin to imagine so much of our 21sr century, so he and the rest offered us the ability to make Constitutional changes in response to societal changes.


This will soon be indistinguishable from the real. So if you are amazed at what the morons will accept now, you better strap on for AI free speech.


https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17 ... e-buzzfeed

[GoCubsGo]

Madison couldn't begin to imagine so much of our 21sr century, so he and the rest offered us the ability to make Constitutional changes in response to societal changes.


This will soon be indistinguishable from the real. So if you are amazed at what the morons will accept now, you better strap on for AI free speech.


https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17 ... e-buzzfeed

Aaand, everything goes back to porn

[GoCubsGo]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

Truth to power and all that stuff.

I have no problem with a private platform banning hate speech etc. Reddit recently banned a Q forum. They can find another venue, their rights were not infringed, after all it is a private platform just like here where people have been banned

[Vrede too]

... This will soon be indistinguishable from the real. So if you are amazed at what the morons will accept now, you better strap on for AI free speech.

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17 ... e-buzzfeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0

[Vrede too]

Here's a real world example:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Tell Twitter: Crack down on @RealDonaldTrump after Iran threats



Petition to Twitter:

"Revoke Donald Trump’s Twitter account for violations of the Twitter terms of service and institute safeguards to prevent a single tweet from sparking armed conflict."

I signed.

[O Really]

I'm not actually too concerned about whether Facebook or whoever makes a business decision in their own best interest as to whether to allow certain, language, content, images, etc., or whether to ban certain people for the content they post. As has been noted many times, the right to "free speech" applies to government censorship, and particularly with regard to speaking about (or against) the government. We, the society as a whole, don't owe anybody a soapbox to spew their ignorant hate or a guarantee that we won't pelt them with rotten eggs while they're speaking.

But what bothers me a lot is the comfort level the government is getting with stifling speech that by any traditional definition should be protected. And that includes governmental pressure on corporations so that "business decision" isn't so independent or in the company's best interest (other than avoiding government pressure).

[bannination]

Here's a real world example:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Tell Twitter: Crack down on @RealDonaldTrump after Iran threats



Petition to Twitter:

"Revoke Donald Trump’s Twitter account for violations of the Twitter terms of service and institute safeguards to prevent a single tweet from sparking armed conflict."

I signed.

It's obviously violates twitters TOS, but isn't it better that we know he's making these kinds of threats than not? I mean if he were banned we'd be in the dark about most of his idiocy.

[Vrede too]

... But what bothers me a lot is the comfort level the government is getting with stifling speech that by any traditional definition should be protected.

One example is the efforts to mandate what doctors can say to pregnant patients.

And that includes governmental pressure on corporations so that "business decision" isn't so independent or in the company's best interest (other than avoiding government pressure).

I don't know what you mean.

It's obviously violates twitters TOS, but isn't it better that we know he's making these kinds of threats than not? I mean if he were banned we'd be in the dark about most of his idiocy.

If all that Twitter did is give us a glimpse into his psychosis, I might agree. Instead, he uses it as a political weapon and an instrument of policy. The threat to Iran, for example, is meant to rile up his fanboys, please Israel and provoke Iran, but it isn't really telling Iran anything that it didn't already know.

[Leo Lyons]

This free speech thing has me highly offended!

[billy.pilgrim]

"Alabama Students Warned Not to Protest Trump
November 6, 2019 at 3:34 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 238 Comments

“The Student Government Association at the University of Alabama is warning groups that protesting President Trump during the Tide’s Saturday game vs. LSU could result in loss of reserved seating for the remainder of the season,” the Birmingham News reports.

President Trump is expected to be in the audience."

[Vrede too]

"Alabama Students Warned Not to Protest Trump
November 6, 2019 at 3:34 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 238 Comments

“The Student Government Association at the University of Alabama is warning groups that protesting President Trump during the Tide’s Saturday game vs. LSU could result in loss of reserved seating for the remainder of the season,” the Birmingham News reports.

President Trump is expected to be in the audience."

Students that docilely comply shame and dishonor the word "student".

[GoCubsGo]

"Alabama Students Warned Not to Protest Trump
November 6, 2019 at 3:34 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 238 Comments

“The Student Government Association at the University of Alabama is warning groups that protesting President Trump during the Tide’s Saturday game vs. LSU could result in loss of reserved seating for the remainder of the season,” the Birmingham News reports.

President Trump is expected to be in the audience."

Students that docilely comply shame and dishonor the word "student".

And strangely re tweeted by Cheetohead.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·

Donald J. Trump Retweeted
AL.com
@aldotcom
·
10h
The Alabama SGA warns groups: Protest Trump during the LSU game and risk losing your reserved seating. https://trib.al/Teburyo

[Vrede too]

"Alabama Students Warned Not to Protest Trump
November 6, 2019 at 3:34 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 238 Comments

“The Student Government Association at the University of Alabama is warning groups that protesting President Trump during the Tide’s Saturday game vs. LSU could result in loss of reserved seating for the remainder of the season,” the Birmingham News reports.

President Trump is expected to be in the audience."

Students that docilely comply shame and dishonor the word "student".

And strangely re tweeted by Cheetohead.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·

Donald J. Trump Retweeted
AL.com
@aldotcom
·
10h
The Alabama SGA warns groups: Protest Trump during the LSU game and risk losing your reserved seating. https://trib.al/Teburyo

Alabama warns student groups not to engage in 'disruptive behavior' during Trump visit

... That warning — which has not been sent prior to any other Alabama game this season, per Al.com — may fall on deaf ears considering there is only one other home game for Alabama this season: Nov. 23 vs. mighty Western Carolina.

:!:

...

From the University of Alabama SGA, ahead of President Trump's visit to the game. Strange that in all the games in which drunken bacchanalia has been tolerated, if not celebrated and encouraged I've never once been warned to not be "disruptive"

Due to an increase in security outside of the stadium, we anticipate that it will take an hour or more to get into the stadium. Consequently, it is imperative to fill your sections earlier than normal. We ask that all members of your respective organizations enter the stadium no later than 12:30 p.m. for this weekend’s game ...

The game starts at 2:30 p.m. CT. POSPOTUS is inconveniencing 100K fans all because his delicate snowflake ego is bruised by being booed at the World Series and even a UFC event. He doesn't care about the game and even left the 2017-18 College Football Playoff National Championship between Alabama and Georgia at halftime before Alabama came back to win 26-23 in OT.

‘Nothing to do with First Amendment rights’

Some wondered if Rothfarb’s letter was an effort to curb any potential protests that could arise from the president’s presence. In a follow-up email, he claimed that was a misinterpretation and that his letter had “nothing to do with anyone’s First Amendment rights.”

Some have misinterpreted my comment regarding “disruptive behavior.” As with other games this season, Organization’s Block Seating locations will be clearly marked, but at certain times, other students can and should have access to open seats. By disruptive behavior, we are asking students to be respectful to all students and staff and avoid altercations. My email has nothing do with anyone’s First Amendment rights and I am sorry for any confusion. Please express yourself and especially your pride for the Tide.

Later, the Alabama SGA released a statement affirming “its belief in free speech and the rights of all students to express their opinions.”

...

...

Translation: We tried and got busted nationally, so now we're pretending it never happened.

[billy.pilgrim]

baby trump blimp to be in T-town on Saturday

[neoplacebo]

"Alabama Students Warned Not to Protest Trump
November 6, 2019 at 3:34 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 238 Comments

“The Student Government Association at the University of Alabama is warning groups that protesting President Trump during the Tide’s Saturday game vs. LSU could result in loss of reserved seating for the remainder of the season,” the Birmingham News reports.

President Trump is expected to be in the audience."

Students that docilely comply shame and dishonor the word "student".

I didn't see anything about a prohibition on protesting outside the stadium or anywhere else in the vicinity. The threat of losing your student seat at the game is of no consequence to non students or students who don't much give a shit about football. I will quote trump: "We'll see what happens."

[Vrede too]

I didn't see anything about a prohibition on protesting outside the stadium or anywhere else in the vicinity. The threat of losing your student seat at the game is of no consequence to non students or students who don't much give a shit about football. I will quote trump: "We'll see what happens."

True. Also, according to the article (above) they backtracked from the clear implication of their original threat. Now, they seem to be saying that booing, flipping 45SHOLE off or holding up a sign - within the existing constraints for all signs - will be tolerated.

It seems that only physical "disruption" will lead to loss of attendance rights at the sole remaining home game "vs. mighty Western Carolina." I wonder if it will be considered physical "disruption" if some Trumpette asshole punches a student that is merely booing?