Free Speech

[Daz555]

This gets into too big to fail territory. Are these things actually essential, or are we just uncomfortable with the amount of discomfort, damage and other negative consequences from letting things play out?

If any major industry fails suddenly there's going to be fallout. That doesn't mean that all major industries are essential, it just means that large groups of people are poor at reacting quickly to sudden change.

There are elements of the airline industry that make it essential beyond simply it being too big to fail, or that we have simply built our lives around it being present.

We could easily argue that the ability to move vast quantities of freight around the world at 500mph+ is essential. For example - the rapid distribution of Covid vaccines, respirators, oxygen etc. would have been severely curtailed if we'd had to rely on shipping and military air support.

 

[Imari]

We can be pedantic about words all day long honestly, it's not something I'm too interested in as long as we understand what we're trying to say.

You're not interested in making an attempt to use accurate language it seems, as in your next paragraph you're right back to calling them essential.

Good luck with your assault on the English language. You're clearly not even trying to convey your ideas in a reasonable manner. I'm not interested in playing guessing games and trying to read your mind.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Scaff]

losing track of what's already been said (or not said), but I explained in the post you quoted that any industry large enough needs to be regulated to reduce potential harm to the public.

So what is the cut off point in terms of size?

That's not complicated and I don't know why you're all arguing against having a judge in charge of removing/censoring someone.

Because it's both asinine and unworkable, social media platforms are global, which jurisdiction would this 'judge' sit in and what countries legal system would they work to in order to enforce this?

Among the many glaringly obvious dangers, social media has the biggest influence on public perception/opinion today.

And your take on how to police it would make matters worse, not better.

We cannot allow private companies (or even the government) to be a ministry of truth through censorship or algorithms that suppress/boost certain opinions or people.

Private companies are free to chose what speech they want to include on the platforms they operate, exactly because they are not governments. What you are advocating would have forced social media platforms to not only broadcast, but keep live the footage a racists hate attack this very weekend, one that showed the murder of numerous innocent people. Having to go through the hoops of asking a judge (working to laws determined by a government - and in many countries judges are very much political appointments) and obtaining a ruling before they could remove it.

What you are proposing is quite frankly the worse take on the rights of non-governmental entities to determine what speech they do and don't want to support on the property and platforms they own and operate.

 

[Danoff]

App developer: I'm going to create a new app where people can connect with each other and share and make friends all across the world.
Right-wingers: You gotta host the most disgusting stuff.

I can see why this is appealing to authoritarians. If the whole internet became a cesspool, which political beliefs would be most satisfied with that? People that preach love, tolerance, connectedness, forgiveness, understanding, empathy? No, not those people.

Who among us needs the level of discourse brought down to the most abhorrent levels?

 

[Famine]

Who among us needs the level of discourse brought down to the most abhorrent levels?

Speaking of which, looks like someone has buyer's remorse (or his crypto stocks tanked, or he was just being an insincere dick all along):

 

[Blitz24]

Speaking of which, looks like someone has buyer's remorse (or his crypto stocks tanked, or he was just being an insincere dick all along):

He's trying to get a better price on the deal or have it nixed because he didn't do due diligence. For someone supposedly as smart as Musk, this was not just an own goal, this was an own goal hat trick.

 

[Joey D]

he was just being an insincere dick all along

It's that one.

 

[Tornado]

It's that one.

Now, look, I'm not saying the world would be better off if you were gone; but I'm not not saying that.

 

[McLaren]

Now, look, I'm not saying the world would be better off if you were gone; but I'm not not saying that.

 

[UKMikey]

.

Elon of Troy, the face that launched a thousand 💩's.

 

[Blitz24]

Hey, maybe he's just not a Luka fan.

 

[McLaren]

Hey, maybe he's just not a Luka fan.

The member I'm poking fun at has every right to be in that regards.

We smashed that ass so bad, their young center looks like he's out & they're stuck paying $60 million to a 37 year old player for the next 2 years.

 

[R3V]

So what is the cut off point in terms of size?

We can debate that once we agree on the principle. Are you also anti-anti-trust like the other libertarian member?

Because it's both asinine and unworkable, social media platforms are global, which jurisdiction would this 'judge' sit in and what countries legal system would they work to in order to enforce this?

The US, where it's established. Other countries can ban the platform if they don't like it or work out a deal with law enforcement.

Private companies are free to chose what speech they want to include on the platforms they operate, exactly because they are not governments. What you are advocating would have forced social media platforms to not only broadcast, but keep live the footage a racists hate attack this very weekend, one that showed the murder of numerous innocent people. Having to go through the hoops of asking a judge (working to laws determined by a government - and in many countries judges are very much political appointments) and obtaining a ruling before they could remove it.

Nope, nope and nope. You can't murder people in a public square, why would it be okay to show it?

They can remove what they like anyway, but if challenged in court and the judge deemed it in violation, it should be reinstated with the censored person getting some form of compensation. This is similar to police arresting someone for speech. They do it, get sued, public pays for a settlement. If the arrest/censorship was legal, then there's nothing to worry about.

Oh and this distrust of government and judges, what's your alternative? You're already trusting them with free speech in public, among other things.

edit

That first question is not a "strawman" by the way, nor is it rhetorical.

 

[TexRex]

 

[R3V]

Forgot to quote this earlier.

I can see why this is appealing to authoritarians. If the whole internet became a cesspool, which political beliefs would be most satisfied with that? People that preach love, tolerance, connectedness, forgiveness, understanding, empathy? No, not those people.

Who among us needs the level of discourse brought down to the most abhorrent levels?

So is the real world outside social media a cesspool for allowing free speech, no matter how negative?

 

[Tornado]

They can remove what they like anyway, but if challenged in court and the judge deemed it in violation, it should be reinstated with the censored person getting some form of compensation. This is similar to police arresting someone for speech. They do it, get sued, public pays for a settlement. If the arrest/censorship was legal, then there's nothing to worry about.

I'm sure Abbot and the Texas legislature love your support.

 

[Scaff]

We can debate that once we agree on the principle.

No, we absolutely will not, to ask someone to agree to something that you refuse to explain the detail behind the core argument of, is the behaviour of one who wishes to act like an authoritarian. If you can't convince people with the detail of your position, and refuse to discuss the detail in order to convince people of its validity, then you have no position of merit.

Are you also anti-anti-trust like the other libertarian member?

This isn't an anti-trust discussion and I'm not a libertarian.

The US, where it's established. Other countries can ban the platform if they don't like it or work out a deal with law enforcement.

And your argument is that protects free speech? It doesn't and its laughably poor logic.

Nope, nope and nope. You can't murder people in a public square, why would it be okay to show it?

Because you are arguing that they should, that's a very real repercussion of the argument you have proposed, as has been explained in this very thread.

They can remove what they like anyway, but if challenged in court and the judge deemed it in violation, it should be reinstated with the censored person getting some form of compensation. This is similar to police arresting someone for speech. They do it, get sued, public pays for a settlement. If the arrest/censorship was legal, then there's nothing to worry about.

Again it's already been explained that's an unworkable approach.

Oh and this distrust of government and judges, what's your alternative? You're already trusting them with free speech in public, among other things.

Free speech being left exactly as it is, the limits that currently exist on it are already robust. what we need is a society that is better equipped to apply critical reasoning skills, that understands subjects such as Popper's Paradox, and a much more robust separation of church and state (and that actually applies as much, if not more, in the UK than it does in the US).

Your proposed solution, that you refuse to detail, and as such can't support, would make things worse, not better.

edit

That first question is not a "strawman" by the way, nor is it rhetorical.

It's not rhetorical, but it was a set-up to an attempted strawman.

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Forgot to quote this earlier.

So is the real world outside social media a cesspool for allowing free speech, no matter how negative?

This is a core misrepresentation that you still have failed to realise you are applying.

Free speech is limited to the government (in the US), the government can't censor your speech, private individuals, in private spaces most certainly can.

If I own a bar and someone came in spouting racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. nonsense. They have zero right of free speech to do so. I can quite legally tell them to stop doing so, and should they refuse to I can throw them out, hell I can skip the first step if I like and just throw them out.

An analogy that might help. It's akin to me being able to force a food store (once they meet a size that you refuse to set or rationalise) to stock alcohol because I demand a right to buy it from them, even if they don't not sell it for personal moral reasons. What right do I have to force them to do so?

 

[Danoff]

So is the real world outside social media a cesspool for allowing free speech, no matter how negative?

The "real world" outside social media does not operate the way you're insisting that social media operate. You cannot force others to display your speech. If you could, yea maybe it would be a bit more cesspool. If I were legally forced to leave a graffiti swastika on my house, yea that would make things worse.

 

[R3V]

No, we absolutely will not, to ask someone to agree to something that you refuse to explain the detail behind the core argument of, is the behaviour of one who wishes to act like an authoritarian. If you can't convince people with the detail of your position, and refuse to discuss the detail in order to convince people of its validity, then you have no position of merit.

I wanted to take it step by step but ok. I already explained it somewhere. If it's large enough that the population or the economy will require time/money to adapt, or if it's influential enough to daily life, it should be regulated. I extend this to marketing as well but that's not the discussion.

Details more than that will require a research team. There's bits and pieces shedding light on how influential social media can be.

This isn't an anti-trust discussion and I'm not a libertarian.

Okay, thanks for answering. That's good to know. I would not waste time discussing this topic with a libertarian. I feel like mine isn't wasted now.

Your proposed solution, that you refuse to detail, and as such can't support, would make things worse, not better.

My proposal is literally applying free speech laws in public to Twitter, youtube, facebook, instagram and the others.

You take the words said (or image displayed) on the platform, and place the person hypothetically in a public square. If those words (or images) would put rightfully put him/her in prison, then they may be censored. Otherwise, no. It's the most workable solution of all workable solutions. What details do you want?

Oh and how would the murder spree footage be protected? Can someone bring a giant TV screen to a sidewalk and play graphic footage on it? AFAIK, this is not protected. Also, who's going to challenge social media companies for censoring those videos? The nutcase terrorist who just murdered 10 people?

This is a core misrepresentation that you still have failed to realise you are applying.

Free speech is limited to the government (in the US), the government can't censor your speech, private individuals, in private spaces most certainly can.

If I own a bar and someone came in spouting racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. nonsense. They have zero right of free speech to do so. I can quite legally tell them to stop doing so, and should they refuse to I can throw them out, hell I can skip the first step if I like and just throw them out.

An analogy that might help. It's akin to me being able to force a food store (once they meet a size that you refuse to set or rationalise) to stock alcohol because I demand a right to buy it from them, even if they don't not sell it for personal moral reasons. What right do I have to force them to do so?

You keep bringing that up as if that's what I said.

1) I'm aware the US 1st amendment is currently interpreted as protection from government censorship on public land.
2) I want to change #1 to include social media companies large enough (as mentioned above). Also want to integrate it into labor laws but this isn't the discussion.
3) No, I do not think anyone should force you to allow anything you don't like in a closed private area in person.
4) I don't see how how #3 applies to twitter (or others).


Ironically on #3, people were outraged that a wedding cake bakery refused to bake for a gay couple. He was using the same logic you guys are using and was considered a hateful bigot. There were calls for exceptions needed to be made that allowed "interference" with private entities.


edit

The "real world" outside social media does not operate the way you're insisting that social media operate. You cannot force others to display your speech. If you could, yea maybe it would be a bit more cesspool. If I were legally forced to leave a graffiti swastika on my house, yea that would make things worse.

A sidewalk operates just like social media. You can run into people screming the N word at you any day of the week. It would be fully legal and no police officer would be able to legally arrest them.

 

[Danoff]

4) I don't see how how #3 applies to twitter (or others).

It's not government property, that's how.

A sidewalk operates just like social media. You can run into people screming the N word at you any day of the week. It would be fully legal and no police officer would be able to legally arrest them.

Perhaps not screaming actually. But if I own the sidewalk instead of the government (and twitter is not owned by the government), then it ceases to be the case. You see then how this example falls apart.

 

[R3V]

It's not government property, that's how.


Perhaps not screaming actually. But if I own the sidewalk instead of the government (and twitter is not owned by the government), then it ceases to be the case. You see then how this example falls apart.

Hang on. This is about the cesspool comment. Yeah sure, not screaming. I'll do your technicality on your behalf. Yes, if you or a police interpret his body language to be aggressive and indicative of an iminent physical attack, it's considered "fighting words" and you may arrest him or defend yourself.

Back on track, suppose he's just holding up a sign with the phrase "I hate [N word]" and he utters it verbally to every passing individual with a smile on his face. Including black people. That's legal. Is the real world now a cesspool and you'd want to change the legality of that?***

edit

Change the legality of it. Of course we'd want to change that. Before anyone jumps at this..

edit
I mean we'd all agree we want to change the world that produced such people. I'm asking if you'd want to change its legality.

 

[Joey D]

1) I'm aware the US 1st amendment is currently interpreted as protection from government censorship on public land.

It's not an interpretation though. The First Amendment is one thing that really isn't as gray as some of the other Amendments. It exists to protect citizens from being censored by the government, that's it. Anyone else can censor you, you can censor anyone else, and it doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying what you want.

Ironically on #3, people were outraged that a wedding cake bakery refused to bake for a gay couple. He was using the same logic you guys are using and was considered a hateful bigot. There were calls for exceptions needed to be made that allowed "interference" with private entities.

Because he was a hateful bigot, however it was the baker's right to refuse to bake the cake. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.

 

[R3V]

Because he was a hateful bigot, however it was the baker's right to refuse to bake the cake. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.

Wait, it's still legal to have a sign that says no Irish, blacks or jews? You're okay with that being legal?

 

[Danoff]

Hang on. This is about the cesspool comment. Yeah sure, not screaming. I'll do your technicality on your behalf. Yes, if you or a police interpret his body language to be aggressive and indicative of an iminent physical attack, it's considered "fighting words" and you may arrest him or defend yourself.

Back on track, suppose he's just holding up a sign with the phrase "I hate [N word]" and he utters it verbally to every passing individual with a smile on his face. Including black people. That's legal. Is the real world now a cesspool and you'd want to change the legality of that?***

If you attend the rose parade (or similar type of televised parade), you will inevitably see people right behind the parade doing exactly what you describe. Parading down the street with their disgusting signs. So I'm not questioning whether it is legal.

And no, I would not change the legality of it. Protesting (whatever your cause) on public property is your right. It is your right precisely because the property is public. What this has to do with twitter, which is not owned by any government entity, is quite beyond me.

 

[UKMikey]

Wait, it's still legal to have a sign that says no Irish, blacks or jews? You're okay with that being legal?

People are still displaying signs like these? It's not exactly a selling point for your business to advertise that you're a racist.

The trouble with blanket legislation of the kind you're describing is that it can sometimes hurt people instead of help them.

UK supreme court backs housing charity's 'Jewish only' rule

Ruling cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage

www.theguardian.com

 

[TexRex]

Wait, it's still legal to have a sign that says no Irish, blacks or jews? You're okay with that being legal?

I'm particularly in support of one's right to post such a sign because it informs anyone who sees it of their attitudes toward other groups that they disfavor.

I also happen to oppose government compelling private actors to render goods and/or services to groups that they disfavor.

Racists are worthless mother****ers...but they should get to be racist.

 

[Scaff]

I wanted to take it step by step but ok. I already explained it somewhere. If it's large enough that the population or the economy will require time/money to adapt, or if it's influential enough to daily life, it should be regulated. I extend this to marketing as well but that's not the discussion.

Details more than that will require a research team. There's bits and pieces shedding light on how influential social media can be.

You are still failing to see the problem with this, the one which makes it utterly unworkable.

If you set the limit to say 10 million users, all a platform has to do to circumvent your controls is set a cap on membership to 1 below that, ditto if you set it on any value. It arbitrary and unworkable.

An argument exists for the internet being an essential service in developed countries, but one does not exist for social media being an essential service. Popularity does not equal essential.

Okay, thanks for answering. That's good to know. I would not waste time discussing this topic with a libertarian. I feel like mine isn't wasted now.

Why? If your argument was robust enough then it would be convincing, the issue here isn't the people you're debating, it's the lack of logical ground your argument has.

My proposal is literally applying free speech laws in public to Twitter, youtube, facebook, instagram and the others.

None of them are the government, and you can't even define the level at which they should be treated as if they are government bodies (and they shouldn't).

You take the words said (or image displayed) on the platform, and place the person hypothetically in a public square. If those words (or images) would put rightfully put him/her in prison, then they may be censored. Otherwise, no. It's the most workable solution of all workable solutions. What details do you want?

It's not a public square however, it's a private entity and location on the internet, so your analogy doesn't pass muster.

Oh and how would the murder spree footage be protected? Can someone bring a giant TV screen to a sidewalk and play graphic footage on it? AFAIK, this is not protected. Also, who's going to challenge social media companies for censoring those videos? The nutcase terrorist who just murdered 10 people?

The far-right supporters of people who carry out those actions, and yes a large enough number of them do exist.

You keep bringing that up as if that's what I said.

1) I'm aware the US 1st amendment is currently interpreted as protection from government censorship on public land.
2) I want to change #1 to include social media companies large enough (as mentioned above). Also want to integrate it into labor laws but this isn't the discussion.
3) No, I do not think anyone should force you to allow anything you don't like in a closed private area in person.
4) I don't see how how #3 applies to twitter (or others).

Because Twitter isn't the government, it's really quite simple.

Ironically on #3, people were outraged that a wedding cake bakery refused to bake for a gay couple. He was using the same logic you guys are using and was considered a hateful bigot. There were calls for exceptions needed to be made that allowed "interference" with private entities.

And in both the UK and US cases (it's happened a few times) they were found to be legally able to do so (private business), and they faced the consequences of those actions as if it's the UK story you are referring to, people boycotted them as a result of their actions and the shop closed.

Advocating for free speech and expression does not, and never has, and should not provide protection from the consequences of those actions.

 

[Brett]

Wait, it's still legal to have a sign that says no Irish, blacks or jews? You're okay with that being legal?

I am absolutely okay with that being legal. I would rather pieces of 💩 let me know up front that they are pieces of 💩.

 

[Joey D]

Wait, it's still legal to have a sign that says no Irish, blacks or jews? You're okay with that being legal?

I'm not sure on their legality and it's probably going to differ in different areas, but I don't think they should be illegal at all. This is coming from someone who's Jew-ish too. However, if a business were to put a sign like that and they failed because no one wanted to buy something from a bigoted store, then it would be a major case of sucks to be that business owner.