When "free speech advocates" don't give a fuck about free speech being suppressed...

[Bomb#20]

You don't think Patooka and Metaphor are political opponents and Patooka's intent was to prove Metaphor wrong? Okay. What do you think the intent of the OP was?

I think the intent if the OP was too illustrate that some free speech warriors (not just one) don’t gave as an expansive view of free speech as they claim.

Well, I'm charitably giving Patooka the benefit of the doubt and assuming he isn't crazy enough to imagine he can draw any inferences from the silence of TFT's American free speech warriors about an event in far-away Australia that wasn't all over the parochial self-focused American media. Are there any other Australian free speech warriors here besides Metaphor?

If in fact some free speech warriors don’t have as expansive a view of free speech as they claim, that would make them wrong, no? And if Patooka's insinuation that the true motive for their free speech advocacy is transphobia were correct, that would make them even more wrong, no? So I'm not seeing a case for doubting that Patooka's intent in posting his OP was to show that his political opponents are wrong. That hypothesis appears to fit like a glove.

 

[Bomb#20]

Denmark, Holland, France, the UK. Germany.

With a sharp contrast to USA, Sweden, the Middle East and China where loose lips can ruin your life.

Holland? I'm pretty sure loose lips ruined Pim Fortuyn's life.

Now you know why so many Dutch have a problem with importing Middle Eastern Conservative refugees.

Actually, it was the filmmaker Theo van Gogh who was assassinated by a (Dutch-born) conservative son of Moroccan immigrants. Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by a home-grown ethnic Dutch left-wing extremist much like the ones you say have taken over Sweden.

This is what happens. The slippery slope of intolerance ends in murder

Yes. Woke intolerance and Islamist intolerance are birds of a feather.

 

[Bomb#20]

Now you know why so many Dutch have a problem with importing Middle Eastern Conservative refugees. This is what happens. The slippery slope of intolerance ends in murder

Never heard of that guy, but damn, he only spent 12 years in a Dutch prison. I think assassination might be worth it in the Netherlands.

The left-wing ethnic Dutch guy who killed a politician got out after 12 years; the conservative product of the Arab world who killed a movie director is in prison for life without parole. Not sure why the Dutch criminal justice system decided a Prime Minister candidate's assassin didn't qualify as a "terrorist".

 

[Bomb#20]

On Free Speech. Let us think a bit.

Citizens United. Very Rich people can freely give very large amounts of money to political candidates. Giving away large amounts of money to political candidates constitutes free speech.

Georgia 2021. Giving away a bottle of water to a voter in a long line in Georgia on a hot day is now illegal. Conclusion, the governor of Georgia has outlawed free speech in Florida. Giving away a bottle of water to a thirsty voter does not constitute free speech.

Have I got this right?

No. Citizens United held that the government couldn't suppress "Hillary: The Movie". It did not hold that anybody could freely give away money to political candidates; it did not hold that giving money to political candidates constitutes free speech. The campaign of mass lying about what the Citizens United ruling said began practically before the ink was dry.

(Also, how are you getting from that imbecilic Georgia law to anything about Florida? "Florida Man Enforces Georgia Law in Florida"?)

 

[Rhea]

On Free Speech. Let us think a bit.

Citizens United. Very Rich people can freely give very large amounts of money to political candidates. Giving away large amounts of money to political candidates constitutes free speech.

Georgia 2021. Giving away a bottle of water to a voter in a long line in Georgia on a hot day is now illegal. Conclusion, the governor of Georgia has outlawed free speech in Florida. Giving away a bottle of water to a thirsty voter does not constitute free speech.

Have I got this right?

No. Citizens United held that the government couldn't suppress "Hillary: The Movie". It did not hold that anybody could freely give away money to political candidates; it did not hold that giving money to political candidates constitutes free speech. The campaign of mass lying about what the Citizens United ruling said began practically before the ink was dry.

Citizens united said that Corporations and not for profits (PACs) could freely spend on electioneering as part of free speech.

essentially allowing rich people to spend freely on electing candidates they favored

 

[laughing dog]

If in fact some free speech warriors don’t have as expansive a view of free speech as they claim, that would make them wrong, no?

Not necessarily, it would mean their views on free speech are not as permissive as they think or appear.

And if Patooka's insinuation that the true motive for their free speech advocacy is transphobia were correct, that would make them even more wrong, no?

It would make them hypocrites.

So I'm not seeing a case for doubting that Patooka's intent in posting his OP was to show that his political opponents are wrong. That hypothesis appears to fit like a glove.

Perhaps a 7 fingered glove, but I think there is plenty of room for doubt.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've always had the impression that Australian politics is just UK politics with better weather.

I've always been an advocate of free speech, at least the US version of free speech, the kind where the government is not allowed to punish someone for voicing antigovernment opinions. As most Americans are poorly educated, a lot of people think free speech means as citizens, we can't a negative reaction to some other citizens speech. We've even created a name for it, "cancel culture."

Cancel culture is basically when someone looks around at the general reaction to a particular person's speech and says, "I think you're bad for business and you have to leave." As they say in the movies, "It's business, nothing personal". As far as I can recall, the term cancel culture came about when a rich and powerful man lost his job because he thought one of his perks was having sex with women who worked for him. Now it's applied to anyone who manages to piss off enough people it might affect stock prices.

After wading through the OP, looking for some point to all of this, I find out it's not a suppression of free speech for a politician to sue a citizen for slander, after all, but I'm supposed to be just as upset as if it was. Maybe. It's not really clear.

 

[Bomb#20]

Citizens United. Very Rich people can freely give very large amounts of money to political candidates. Giving away large amounts of money to political candidates constitutes free speech. ... Have I got this right?

No. Citizens United held that the government couldn't suppress "Hillary: The Movie". It did not hold that anybody could freely give away money to political candidates; it did not hold that giving money to political candidates constitutes free speech. The campaign of mass lying about what the Citizens United ruling said began practically before the ink was dry.

Citizens united said that Corporations and not for profits (PACs) could freely spend on electioneering as part of free speech.

I.e., they're allowed to spend their money explaining why they hate Hillary Clinton.

If the government hadn't suppressed the movie, the only politician to benefit would have been Barack Obama. The decision's opponents are in effect ludicrously arguing that these right-wing Hillary-haters were actually attempting to give an illegal gift of money to Obama. But the Supreme Court declined to go along with Congress redefining "speaking your mind" as "bribery". If instead of spending their money making and promoting their movie, those right-wingers had simply taken all that money and handed it in a suitcase over to Obama, that would have been illegal. And it's still illegal -- Citizens United didn't change that. The SCOTUS did not rule that giving away large amounts of money to political candidates constitutes free speech.

essentially allowing rich people to spend freely on electing candidates they favored

Rich people were already allowed to spend freely on electing candidates they favored, just as they're allowed to spend freely on financing money-losing opera companies. The theory that the First Amendment was enacted for the purpose of authorizing apolitical theatrical performances and was never meant to authorize people to speak out about elections is without historical merit.

What Citizens United ruled was that a large group of poor people banding together to form a corporation collectively richer than any of them remain covered by the First Amendment just like an individual rich person is. For some reason, this concept causes conniption fits in leftists. It's bizarre. The legal principle that banned Senators McCain and Feingold from suppressing "Hillary: The Movie" -- the principle that your First Amendment rights don't vanish in a puff of sophistry whenever you use the machinery of corporation law -- is the exact same legal principle that banned Richard Nixon from suppressing the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times is a corporation. If the First Amendment didn't apply to corporations then freedom of the press would vanish in that same puff of sophistry. It is mind-boggling that so many left-wingers are jonesing to throw the Pentagon Papers under the bus just to stop right-wingers from ranting about how they hate Hillary.

 

[RVonse]

[
What Citizens United ruled was that a large group of poor people banding together to form a corporation collectively richer than any of them remain covered by the First Amendment just like an individual rich person is.

But that was exactly the problem. Poor people are not sophisticated enough to organize like the billionaires who have unlimited resources. So the ruling tilted power and wealth inequality even further towards that end of the population. In general it is always going to be much more likely the billionaire class will have the authority to say what a large organization will do politically.

 

[RVonse]

Cancel culture is basically when someone looks around at the general reaction to a particular person's speech and says, "I think you're bad for business and you have to leave."

I guess there are different opinions about what cancel culture is. IMHO, cancel culture is when free speech is limited so much that that person or organization is cancelled from the earth. As though they no longer exist. For example: Alex Jones was cancelled from the internet when he said things that Google did not like. Google did not kill Alex Jones but they did make him go off the internet far as the average person is concerned. He simply no longer exists for people who like that kind of content. Trump has also been separated from his fans the same way.

That is my definition of cancel culture.

 

[crazyfingers]

Cancel culture is basically when someone looks around at the general reaction to a particular person's speech and says, "I think you're bad for business and you have to leave."

I guess there are different opinions about what cancel culture is. IMHO, cancel culture is when free speech is limited so much that that person or organization is cancelled from the earth. As though they no longer exist. For example: Alex Jones was cancelled from the internet when he said things that Google did not like. Google did not kill Alex Jones but they did make him go off the internet far as the average person is concerned. He simply no longer exists for people who like that kind of content. Trump has also been separated from his fans the same way.

That is my definition of cancel culture.

I'd argue that Alex Jones and Trump and others, with the dangerous lies that they spew, represent a clear and present danger given the number of people who slurp up that shit. It is not safe for 1 in 3 Americans to actually believe the lie that Trump won the election and the other nonsense that's causing so many people to place others in danger by not masking and not getting vaccinated. These no-vax morons will create more and more variants that the vaccines eventually will not be effective against and then Global Pandemic 2.0

Creating a clear and present danger is the definition of where free speech ends.

 

[laughing dog]

Cancel culture is basically when someone looks around at the general reaction to a particular person's speech and says, "I think you're bad for business and you have to leave."

I guess there are different opinions about what cancel culture is. IMHO, cancel culture is when free speech is limited so much that that person or organization is cancelled from the earth. As though they no longer exist. For example: Alex Jones was cancelled from the internet when he said things that Google did not like. Google did not kill Alex Jones but they did make him go off the internet far as the average person is concerned. He simply no longer exists for people who like that kind of content. Trump has also been separated from his fans the same way.

That is my definition of cancel culture.

Alex Jones is not banned from the internet. Infowars.com is still up and running. One can still buy products from infowars.

Alex Jones is banned from Facebook, Youtube and Apple sites -all private enterprise sites. Alex Jones is banned from those sites for his promotion of violence and racism. Hell, the moron even claimed he helped fund the January 6 insurrection. Mr. Jones is free to promulgate his noxious ideas and conspiracy theories to anyone gullible enough to believe his nonsense.

 

[RVonse]

Cancel culture is basically when someone looks around at the general reaction to a particular person's speech and says, "I think you're bad for business and you have to leave."

I guess there are different opinions about what cancel culture is. IMHO, cancel culture is when free speech is limited so much that that person or organization is cancelled from the earth. As though they no longer exist. For example: Alex Jones was cancelled from the internet when he said things that Google did not like. Google did not kill Alex Jones but they did make him go off the internet far as the average person is concerned. He simply no longer exists for people who like that kind of content. Trump has also been separated from his fans the same way.

That is my definition of cancel culture.

I'd argue that Alex Jones and Trump and others, with the dangerous lies that they spew, represent a clear and present danger given the number of people who slurp up that shit. It is not safe for 1 in 3 Americans to actually believe the lie that Trump won the election and the other nonsense that's causing so many people to place others in danger by not masking and not getting vaccinated. These no-vax morons will create more and more variants that the vaccines eventually will not be effective against and then Global Pandemic 2.0

Creating a clear and present danger is the definition of where free speech ends.

And who are you to decide? If you can convince me you are God and all knowing of everything, I am swayed by your argument. Otherwise I'm more inclined to believe you are probably no smarter than our health officials, lying Democrat officials, and lying prestitutes. And even if you know with divine intelligence Alex Jones truly is nuts, what makes it a crime to listen to him anyway? Does watching a porn show necessarily mean I'm going to act out what was shown? Or can I watch porn or (anything else) without the do gooding censorship simply for its entertainment value without setting the fire in the theater?

People in a free society deserve to hear all views of a subject especially when they are political in nature. And we do not have that in the US anymore mostly thanks to Google, twitter, and facebook

 

[RVonse]

Alex Jones is banned from Facebook, Youtube and Apple sites -all private enterprise sites. Alex Jones is banned from those sites for his promotion of violence and racism.

AT&T was also a private enterprise.....yet they were eventually split up as a monopoly of public communications.

 

[crazyfingers]

I'd argue that Alex Jones and Trump and others, with the dangerous lies that they spew, represent a clear and present danger given the number of people who slurp up that shit. It is not safe for 1 in 3 Americans to actually believe the lie that Trump won the election and the other nonsense that's causing so many people to place others in danger by not masking and not getting vaccinated. These no-vax morons will create more and more variants that the vaccines eventually will not be effective against and then Global Pandemic 2.0

Creating a clear and present danger is the definition of where free speech ends.

And who are you to decide? If you can convince me you are God and all knowing of everything, I am swayed by your argument. Otherwise I'm more inclined to believe you are probably no smarter than our health officials, lying Democrat officials, and lying prestitutes. And even if you know with divine intelligence Alex Jones truly is nuts, what makes it a crime to listen to him anyway? Does watching a porn show necessarily mean I'm going to act out what was shown? Or can I watch porn or (anything else) without the do gooding censorship simply for its entertainment value without setting the fire in the theater?

People in a free society deserve to hear all views of a subject especially when they are political in nature. And we do not have that in the US anymore mostly thanks to Google, twitter, and facebook

Anyone who denies that Biden won fair and square or that no-vaxers are making it more likely that a super-variant will emerge that current vaccines may be useless against is either a liar or an uninformed fool. They are facts, not opinions. They create a clear and present danger. And as I pointed out, free speech ends where a clear and present danger begins. Do you accept that facts exist? Do you accept the doctrine of clear and present danger?

 

[TomC]

Cancel culture is basically when someone looks around at the general reaction to a particular person's speech and says, "I think you're bad for business and you have to leave."

I guess there are different opinions about what cancel culture is. IMHO, cancel culture is when free speech is limited so much that that person or organization is cancelled from the earth. As though they no longer exist. For example: Alex Jones was cancelled from the internet when he said things that Google did not like. Google did not kill Alex Jones but they did make him go off the internet far as the average person is concerned. He simply no longer exists for people who like that kind of content. Trump has also been separated from his fans the same way.

That is my definition of cancel culture.

You honestly think that Trump has been "cancelled from the earth"? Alex Jones "No longer exists"?

You don't see the difference between private entities like Twitter deciding rules for their own business and cancel culture?
It's called capitalism. I can't go into Walmart and do anything I want either. It's private property, just like Facebook.
Tom

 

[RVonse]

I'd argue that Alex Jones and Trump and others, with the dangerous lies that they spew, represent a clear and present danger given the number of people who slurp up that shit. It is not safe for 1 in 3 Americans to actually believe the lie that Trump won the election and the other nonsense that's causing so many people to place others in danger by not masking and not getting vaccinated. These no-vax morons will create more and more variants that the vaccines eventually will not be effective against and then Global Pandemic 2.0

Creating a clear and present danger is the definition of where free speech ends.

And who are you to decide? If you can convince me you are God and all knowing of everything, I am swayed by your argument. Otherwise I'm more inclined to believe you are probably no smarter than our health officials, lying Democrat officials, and lying prestitutes. And even if you know with divine intelligence Alex Jones truly is nuts, what makes it a crime to listen to him anyway? Does watching a porn show necessarily mean I'm going to act out what was shown? Or can I watch porn or (anything else) without the do gooding censorship simply for its entertainment value without setting the fire in the theater?

People in a free society deserve to hear all views of a subject especially when they are political in nature. And we do not have that in the US anymore mostly thanks to Google, twitter, and facebook

Anyone who denies that Biden won fair and square or that no-vaxers are making it more likely that a super-variant will emerge that current vaccines may be useless against is either a liar or an uninformed fool. They are facts, not opinions. They create a clear and present danger. And as I pointed out, free speech ends where a clear and present danger begins. Do you accept that facts exist?

Yes I accept that facts exist. I just don't think either you or I know what the facts are most of the time. We certainly aren't going to know the facts by listening to our media or politicians. We are not going to know the facts by checking snopes or the internet either. Unless it is a "fact" that is strictly non political in nature and 100% agreed to by all scientists, I'm not even trusting Wikipedia. And you shouldn't either.

 

[crazyfingers]

Anyone who denies that Biden won fair and square or that no-vaxers are making it more likely that a super-variant will emerge that current vaccines may be useless against is either a liar or an uninformed fool. They are facts, not opinions. They create a clear and present danger. And as I pointed out, free speech ends where a clear and present danger begins. Do you accept that facts exist?

Yes I accept that facts exist. I just don't think either you or I know what the facts are most of the time. We certainly aren't going to know the facts by listening to our media or politicians. We are not going to know the facts by checking snopes or the internet either. Unless it is a "fact" that is strictly non political in nature and 100% agreed to by all scientists, I'm not even trusting Wikipedia. And you shouldn't either.

What about the a non-political fact that these viruses mutate and by allowing the virus to continue to spread the likelihood that a variant will emerge that the vaccines are not effective against increase and represent a danger to the world. This is not "political". It's a biological fact.

 

[RVonse]

Cancel culture is basically when someone looks around at the general reaction to a particular person's speech and says, "I think you're bad for business and you have to leave."

I guess there are different opinions about what cancel culture is. IMHO, cancel culture is when free speech is limited so much that that person or organization is cancelled from the earth. As though they no longer exist. For example: Alex Jones was cancelled from the internet when he said things that Google did not like. Google did not kill Alex Jones but they did make him go off the internet far as the average person is concerned. He simply no longer exists for people who like that kind of content. Trump has also been separated from his fans the same way.

That is my definition of cancel culture.

You honestly think that Trump has been "cancelled from the earth"? Alex Jones "No longer exists"?

You don't see the difference between private entities like Twitter deciding rules for their own business and cancel culture?
It's called capitalism. I can't go into Walmart and do anything I want either. It's private property, just like Facebook.
Tom

If I do not like Walmart it is no problem to buy the same thing at Cosco (capitalism).

That is totally different than Twitter. Because if you are a celebrity there is no substitute for Twitter. At least not yet.

 

[RVonse]

Anyone who denies that Biden won fair and square or that no-vaxers are making it more likely that a super-variant will emerge that current vaccines may be useless against is either a liar or an uninformed fool. They are facts, not opinions. They create a clear and present danger. And as I pointed out, free speech ends where a clear and present danger begins. Do you accept that facts exist?

Yes I accept that facts exist. I just don't think either you or I know what the facts are most of the time. We certainly aren't going to know the facts by listening to our media or politicians. We are not going to know the facts by checking snopes or the internet either. Unless it is a "fact" that is strictly non political in nature and 100% agreed to by all scientists, I'm not even trusting Wikipedia. And you shouldn't either.

What about the a non-political fact that these viruses mutate and by allowing the virus to continue to spread the likelihood that a variant will emerge that the vaccines are not effective against increase and represent a danger to the world. This is not "political". It's a biological fact.

Yes I would classify those facts as mostly scientific and not political. No argument. But they are only facts we know today and not the future. For example, when the pandemic first became known it was a fact that wearing masks did not matter to the spread. That fact changed later on.