Freedom of speech and protest

[SirRumpole]

More pictures of Hunter Biden have also been leaked - and it involves underage children. Disgusting. That pedofile should be locked up - but l'm sure big tech will try to sweep it all under the carpet.

More unsubstantiated rumours ?

You need to provide some links if you throw stuff like that around.

 

[sptrawler]

You might want to make the effort to find out a little bit about a Oliver Wendall Holmes. He's a fella with an 'opinion' a lot more thought out and valid in the circumstances than yours...

That's a very hurtful thing to say, when you know nothing of my circumstances, but the comment is to be expected coming from yourself.
I guess I could expect to find you at the head of the mob, but then that is an assumption on my part, you may well be a very nice person. ?

 

[sptrawler]

One person's freedom led to other peoples deaths, all in the name of freedom.

History is littered with examples of that.

 

[wayneL]

USA never had 'free' speech. It has always been under control of the localized outrage mob where you have to talk and think like the mainstream or else you're labeled and treated like a leper - always has been always will be that way.

Good series of tweets by Navalny about the topic of trumps twitter and freedom of speech.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2. Of course, during his time in the office, Trump has been writing and saying very irresponsible things. And paid for it by not getting re-elected for a second term.</p>&mdash; Alexey Navalny (@navalny) <a href="">January 9, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

To repeat what has been pointed out a million times, free speech does not, and should not, absolve anybody of the consequences of that speech.

Anyone with a wife who asks "does my @ss look big in this" know that very acutely LOL.

However, there should be no legal or regulatory impediment, whether by government or corporation ('cept for incitement to violence etc).

The freedom to offend should be sacrosanct, as should the lawful consequences.

 

[rederob]

History is littered with examples of that.

When did a leader of a democracy last lie to Trump's extent and then incite the masses to overturn an election simply because he was able to abuse the rights afforded to him by the media?

 

[sptrawler]

You said: One persons freedom, led to another persons death, in the name of freedom.
Most wars are fought by people who have no say in whether they live or die and are sent there by people who are free, due to those who go dying for them.
So now the media has the right to decide what is right, that certainly underpins a lot of peoples beliefs and becomes a case of positive reinforcement for them.

 

[rederob]

You said: One persons freedom, led to another persons death, in the name of freedom.
Most wars are fought by people who have no say in whether they live or die and are sent there by people who are free, due to those who go dying for them.
So now the media has the right to decide what is right, that certainly underpins a lot of peoples beliefs and becomes a case of positive reinforcement for them.

This thread is about "free speech."
The consequences of Trump's freedom played out last week.
Trump abused the privilege granted to him by the media and not many are surprised by the outcome.
The media has no role in what you believe: what you believe is what you choose to believe from your experience, and more often than not is based on who is providing the source information rather than the platform/medium delivering it.
In terms of "reinforcement," if you only look for sources that confirm what you have chosen to believe, then you get all the reinforcement you need. I view a fair bit of Fox, QAnon and Newsmax and am impressed with their inability to be logical or evidentiary in what they present.
Next, as @Joe Blow will attest, you cannot afford to keep giving oxygen to platform users who damage your commercial base. You might call this censorship but it's just a necessary business decision. In the banking industry a similar pressure is being applied in relation to lending for coal-based projects. In the advertising industry it's far more cut throat.
As individuals we can have opinions on most things. However, when expressing our opinions we must be respectful of the rights and reputation of others (slander/libel laws), and be mindful of laws relating to matters such as national security, public order or morality. And despite @wayneL's belief, we have no right to universally "offend" others.
If you think you have a case for stepping outside our laws relating to "expression," there is a process through the legislature.

Most of this thread is about the medium or carriage service granted to "expression." Or about the biased nature of publishers in presenting, amplifying or altering "expression." As Trump has found out, nobody has a right that their "expression" is carried beyond the eyes or ears of where it occurred. This latter point is too often confused with "free speech."

 

[SirRumpole]

Next, as @Joe Blow will attest, you cannot afford to keep giving oxygen to platform users who damage your commercial base.

I'd say Trump's twitter had one of the biggest audiences. People who say provocative things usually attract a lot of hangers on keen to read the next absurdity.

The fact that a lot of people believe his tripe and that of QAnon is testament to the poor state of the education system in the US.

Why do you read Qanon when it is such rubbish ? Surely it should be "cancelled" as well ?

 

[sptrawler]

This thread is about "free speech."
The consequences of Trump's freedom played out last week.
Trump abused the privilege granted to him by the media and not many are surprised by the outcome.
The media has no role in what you believe: what you believe is what you choose to believe from your experience, and more often than not is based on who is providing the source information rather than the platform/medium delivering it.
In terms of "reinforcement," if you only look for sources that confirm what you have chosen to believe, then you get all the reinforcement you need. I view a fair bit of Fox, QAnon and Newsmax and am impressed with their inability to be logical or evidentiary in what they present.
Next, as @Joe Blow will attest, you cannot afford to keep giving oxygen to platform users who damage your commercial base. You might call this censorship but it's just a necessary business decision. In the banking industry a similar pressure is being applied in relation to lending for coal-based projects. In the advertising industry it's far more cut throat.
As individuals we can have opinions on most things. However, when expressing our opinions we must be respectful of the rights and reputation of others (slander/libel laws), and be mindful of laws relating to matters such as national security, public order or morality. And despite @wayneL's belief, we have no right to universally "offend" others.
If you think you have a case for stepping outside our laws relating to "expression," there is a process through the legislature.

Most of this thread is about the medium or carriage service granted to "expression." Or about the biased nature of publishers in presenting, amplifying or altering "expression." As Trump has found out, nobody has a right that their "expression" is carried beyond the eyes or ears of where it occurred. This latter point is too often confused with "free speech."

Firstly the media broadcasting anything isn't a privilege, it is based on a commercial decision or a regulatory requirement, if it is a private broadcaster they make a decision on whether they think it will appeal to their audience. That isn't a privilege, unless you are a needy person and will pay them to give you air time.
Publicly funded media have a specific set of obligations, that they have to adhere to, this is to ensure impartiality and an objective presentation.

The media has a lot of influence on public opinion, if it didn't companies, politicians etc wouldn't pay money to advertise and or appeal to the public for their custom or vote.

In terms of "reinforcement", I think you prove my point, by highlighting media that has differing opinion to yours.

I agree regarding censorship, there should actually be more of it, it should be independent impartial and cover all media.

Absolutely agree that respect should be shown when responding to others, people have a right to their beliefs, if someone disagrees with them state the case. I haven't seen many arguments that result in one person changing their stance, usually either one walks away, or the argument escalates and then becomes problematic.

When publishers have carte blanche to self regulate and censor, it obviously leads to a situation where corruption and or political manipulation can occur, a large proportion of the population rely on the media to give them correct, accurate and unadulterated information.
From what you seem to indicate, that is actually optional, I think that is a very dangerous paradigm but one I'm very sure many would wish for ala an investigation into newscorp rather than the media.

 

[wayneL]

I'd say Trump's twitter had one of the biggest audiences. People who say provocative things usually attract a lot of hangers on keen to read the next absurdity.

The fact that a lot of people believe his tripe and that of QAnon is testament to the poor state of the education system in the US.

Why do you read Qanon when it is such rubbish ? Surely it should be "cancelled" as well ?

Could the same be said of Marx, Mao, Foucault, Epicurus, and a host of others?

How about Hillary?

How about Biden, the new liar in chief? Already the double standards are extraordinarily toxic and divisive.

Be careful man, the sort of society you seem to want to facilitate will not be good for anyone, in the end.

 

[SirRumpole]

Be careful man, the sort of society you seem to want to facilitate will not be good for anyone, in the end.

So you are arguing for censorship, or being cynical ?

Name a few Biden lies just to make sure you are not spreading fake news.

 

[wayneL]

So you are arguing for censorship, or being cynical ?

Name a few Biden lies just to make sure you are not spreading fake news.

In what universe are you arguing that I am for censorship?

WTF?

 

[SirRumpole]

In what universe are you arguing that I am for censorship?

WTF?

So what did you mean by the comment "the world I want to facilitate" ? What world is that in your opinion ?

I've said before that I believe bullshite should be out there in order to be rebutted, not shoved into a corner.

What do you think ?

 

[wayneL]

So what did you mean by the comment "the world I want to facilitate" ? What world is that in your opinion ?

I've said before that I believe bullshite should be out there in order to be rebutted, not shoved into a corner.

What do you think ?

Clearly you believe, as evidenced by your comment, that Joey is some font of truth. You even asked me to provide evidence of his lies, without undertaking even some basic research yourself.

The world you facilitate is one where your own ideologues go unquestioned, as they usher in a new dystopia.

Congrats.

 

[SirRumpole]

The world you facilitate is one where your own ideologues go unquestioned, as they usher in a new dystopia.

You have never heard of the maxim of "the burden of proof".

You made the allegation, you back it up.

You have done this many times, throw around vague allegations and expect people to believe what you say. Well , I can't be bothered doing your job for you.

 

[wayneL]

Just one of hundreds of links with a simple Duckduckgo search.



You should try it sometime

 

[SirRumpole]

Just one of hundreds of links with a simple Duckduckgo search.



You should try it sometime

Yes of course you will take any bs that confirms your opinion.

Have you done any due diligence on anything you come up with ?

 

[DB008]

Name a few Biden lies just to make sure you are not spreading fake news.

Are you going to admit you were wrong or not?

 

[sptrawler]

Yes of course you will take any bs that confirms your opinion.

Have you done any due diligence on anything you come up with ?

I haven't watched it, but is your bias making you say it's BS?
This really is where sooner or later some form of external independent censorship will have to be enacted IMO, like newscorp is right, fairfax is left so neither are credible.
It is a real issue IMO and I really don't care either way, but by the veracity of both sides, it obviously isn't going to get better until a realistic center is found.
Just my opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

I haven't watched it, but is your bias making you say it's BS?
This really is where sooner or later some form of external independent censorship will have to be enacted IMO, like newscorp is right, fairfax is left so neither are credible.
It is a real issue IMO.

Like ABC/RMIT Fact Check ?

But they are biased as well of course.