Free Speech

  • Thread starter A2K78
  • 1,175 comments
  • 77,505 views
Facebook does not allow content that says COVID-19 is manmade, manufactured or bioengineered, or that it was created by an individual, government or country.
Misinformation is to say its proved to be manmade.
You are agreeing with Facebook while seemingly disagreeing furiously.

Saying it is manmade is an assertion of fact - which is unsupported by evidence. You're adding the word "proved" but it doesn't fundamentally change the statement. In either case, it is misinformation.

You're then conflating this with the platform censoring discussion of whether it is manmade, which isn't in the quote you provided.
 
inCloud, you quoted me saying that it's misinformation to state it as fact. And then appear to quote yourself saying the same thing? I'm confused by that response. I can't follow whatever point you're trying to make.
Average disposable
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Here's a research paper discussing disposable masks and their efficiency after 24 hours of use, showing that it is still highly effective. Perhaps if you were more specific about the kind of mask you're talking about, we could find the appropriate research to support for your claim of fact. Even better, you could post the research you're using to support your claim.

 
I can take this post two ways.

First way: Free speech includes accountability. Don't say stupid things with your free speech.
Second way: You don't actually have free speech when push comes to shove.

Which of those did you intend? Or did you intend a third?
I mean: if one is punished or "held accountable" (as it's put here, frequently) for expressing something diametrically opposed to other POVs, then that's not free speech. To quote Chomsky (an absolute-ist when it comes to free speech):

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

 
I mean: if one is punished or "held accountable" (as it's put here, frequently) for expressing something diametrically opposed to other POVs, then that's not free speech. To quote Chomsky (an absolute-ist when it comes to free speech):

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

Ah. Any form of punishment or accountability is not the standard for free speech. In fact, freedom of speech requires that you can be held accountable or "punished" socially by others exercising their own free speech. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from accountability, in fact it is nearly the opposite of that idea. Freedom of speech means freedom from force being used against you to prevent some speech. Since it is generally illegal for a private citizen to initiate force against you, it is generally limited to the prevention of government force against someone to prevent or compel speech.

So facebook taking down content is definitely not a freedom of speech issue. For one, it's facebook's website, and therefore their speech, their platform. But for another reason, it's because facebook is not using force against you. There is no threat of violence or incarceration, just a use of facebook's property according to their rules of use for their property.

Likewise, the government saying that something is misinformation, and suggesting that facebook take it down is also not the use of force. The government insisting at the threat of fines, prosecution, or other force would be a violation of freedom of speech.

Hopefully that sorts out your misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
You are agreeing with Facebook while seemingly disagreeing furiously.
Zero questions to Facebook, their platform, their rules, their way to enforce them.

I don't like situation when government forcing Facebook to censorship discussion of vital topics. That's what happened according to Zuck and my experience of how Facebook works.
I'm confused by that response.
You ignored my point.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Did you ever tried to wear face mask for 8 or 12 hours? This is test of it performance against COVID, not of its effect on people.
 
Zero questions to Facebook, their platform, their rules, their way to enforce them.

I don't like situation when government forcing Facebook to censorship discussion of vital topics. That's what happened according to Zuck and my experience of how Facebook works.
You have not demonstrated that the government used force against Facebook. This is an unsubstantiated factual claim. Please provide supporting evidence.
You ignored my point.
I didn't understand your point. That's not the same thing.
Did you ever tried to wear face mask for 8 or 12 hours? This is test of it performance against COVID, not of its effect on people.
Yes. But your point was not about its effect on people, your point was about having to change it 4-5 times a day. Are you just abandoning that point? It would be courteous for you to at least acknowledge that you were wrong on that point.
 
Ah. Any form of punishment or accountability is not the standard for free speech. In fact, freedom of speech requires that you can be held accountable or "punished" socially by others exercising their own free speech. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from accountability, in fact it is nearly the opposite of that idea. Freedom of speech means freedom from force being used against you to prevent some speech. Since it is generally illegal for a private citizen to initiate force against you, it is generally limited to the prevention of government force against someone to prevent or compel speech.

So facebook taking down content is definitely not a freedom of speech issue. For one, it's facebook's website, and therefore their speech, their platform. But for another reason, it's because facebook is not using force against you. There is no threat of violence or incarceration, just a use of facebook's property according to their rules of use for their property.

Likewise, the government saying that something is misinformation, and suggesting that facebook take it down is also not the use of force. The government insisting at the threat of fines, prosecution, or other force would be a violation of freedom of speech.

Hopefully that sorts out your misunderstanding.
And while I don't agree with the definition of Free Speech as you assert it, I completely support and defend your right to express it thusly.
 
Zero questions to Facebook, their platform, their rules, their way to enforce them.

I don't like situation when government forcing Facebook to censorship discussion of vital topics. That's what happened according to Zuck and my experience of how Facebook works.
I have no idea what you're talking about then.

You clearly cited Facebook's rule not to post that COVID is manmade. You then argued the toss over this by way of entirely agreeing with it.

If this is another situation where you're either completely unaware of or pretending to be unaware of the nuances of the English language and then insist you're right for three pages, let me clarify. This:

"Facebook does not allow content that says COVID-19 is manmade, manufactured or bioengineered, or that it was created by an individual, government or country."

And this:

"Misinformation is to say its proved to be manmade."

Are points which agree with one another. You agree that it's "misinformation" to say COVID is manmade, which is what Facebook's moderation on the subject doesn't allow.
 
And while I don't agree with the definition of Free Speech as you assert it, I completely support and defend your right to express it thusly.
What is there to disagree with? That is what free speech means in the US constitution. Were you not talking about the US constitution? Your quote was definitely talking about it.

If you, a member with the US flag under your name, are going to use a definition of free speech, a term with a very specific meaning the US, in a way that is not generally compatible with its use in the US, then YOU need to define it so that there is less confusion.

I have no idea why you would want to use some other definition, but I'm fully prepared to explain to you any pitfalls of whatever custom definition you want to put forth.
 
Last edited:
You agree that it's "misinformation" to say COVID is manmade
I am not. This is expression of opinion, it couldn't be misinformation until its proven wrong.
But your point was not about its effect on people, your point was about having to change it 4-5 times a day.
Not sure what are you talking about. I didn't say that if you didn't change the mask after 4h you would be sick with COVID. I said that masks as protective measure of people effective if its being regularly changed. You can't wear it multiple days for 8h and stay healthy.
 
I am not. This is expression of opinion, it couldn't be misinformation until its proven wrong.
No, it's misinformation to state something as fact which has no factual basis. Again, burden of proof.
Not sure what are you talking about. I didn't say that if you didn't change the mask after 4h you would be sick with COVID. I said that masks as protective measure of people effective if its being regularly changed. You can't wear it multiple days for 8h and stay healthy.
moving-goalposts-goalposts.gif
 
And you completely ignored word "proven", once again.
No. I not only didn't ignore it again, I didn't even ignore it once.

I straight up told you that it's superfluous:

Saying it is manmade is an assertion of fact - which is unsupported by evidence. You're adding the word "proved" but it doesn't fundamentally change the statement. In either case, it is misinformation.
If this is another situation where you're either completely unaware of or pretending to be unaware of the nuances of the English language and then insist you're right for three pages, let me clarify. This:

"Facebook does not allow content that says COVID-19 is manmade, manufactured or bioengineered, or that it was created by an individual, government or country."

And this:

"Misinformation is to say its proved to be manmade."

Are points which agree with one another.
And now you're pretending like I didn't.

Again, you are furiously agreeing with Facebook's moderation policies here and pretending that you aren't, because you're either completely unaware of or pretending to be unaware of the nuances of the English language.
 
Last edited:
I mean: if one is punished or "held accountable" (as it's put here, frequently) for expressing something diametrically opposed to other POVs, then that's not free speech.
Free speech is expression which isn't limited to pure speech not subject to legitimate action by the state or similarly governing body, either direct as by penalty or prosecution, or indirect as by adjudication of civil claims. In the absence of such action, there is no free speech concern. Individuals, or collectives thereof, criticizing speech or conditioning association on speech norms is not counter to expressive freedom, rather it's exercise of individual rights.
To quote Chomsky (an absolute-ist when it comes to free speech):

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

The Chomsky what wrote to downplay atrocities perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge and further sought to downplay such by engaging publishers and urging them to discount testimony by refugees resulting from the Cambodian genocide? That Chomsky?
 
Last edited:
X banned in Brazil, for bypassing Brazilian citizen should pay fine of 8000$ per day.
 
Last edited:
Still, what do you think?
Acceptable behaviour, not really. Acceptable out come in terms of policing, yeah, pretty much.

It's not really comparable to the lad that was doing it basically to incite violence at a football ground, not saying that was necessarily more severe, but all the context was different.

Fact is, it's not banned here like it is in other countries. So I'd assume circumstance and behaviour are considered and intent would have to be proven... how would you make a case for a more severe reaction (given the other guy was basically inviting the fella in the tan/black to fight him at the end)?

edit: Chris Rose seems to think the law means arresting somebody who says something you don't like if someone who said something you like is arrested.
 
Last edited:
It's not really comparable to the lad that was doing it basically to incite violence at a football ground, not saying that was necessarily more severe, but all the context was different.
I'm not sure that's true.

He admitted to "racially aggravated harassment".

Looking this up, there's this:


Shouldn't the guy doing a Nazi salute to a group of protestors protesting on the side of Israel face a similar (perhaps more severe) punishment if we were to apply these laws equally?
 
Last edited:

When approached by The Independent, Mr Robinson declined to comment about Prof Andrews’ video and the investigation.

However, he posted on Twitter/X that he had filed a complaint against Prof Andrews, adding that he believed the academic was racist.

West Midlands Police told The Independent: “We’ve received a report of racist comments being posted online and we’re carrying out enquiries. There is no place for hate crime and we’ll investigate any reports we receive.”

Prof Andrews, who teaches the UK’s first undergraduate Black studies course at Birmingham City University, described the police probe as “utterly ludicrous”.
 
I don't blame Nicole for being the voice of cool-headed reason but It definitely sounds like Cox is up. For a fight, I mean:

screenshot_20230317_021103_chrome-jpg.1240045


Suing people for pointing out that your legislation is unconstitutional to own the libs? Yeah, that doesn't sound the least bit frivolous or performative.
ope.jpg
 
Back