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

[laughing dog]

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

That is factually incorrect - Infowars is available on the Internet. Arguments about reality are more convincing when they are based on fact instead of fiction.

 

[RVonse]

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

That is factually incorrect - Infowars is available on the Internet. Arguments about reality are more convincing when they are based on fact instead of fiction.

This is what I said

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 as 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.

Yes you can still find Alex Jones on the internet but you have to have the special knowledge of who he is. As a practical matter of convenience, he is off the air for an average person who does not know who he is to begin with. Those people would be found on Youtube who no longer continues his show.

 

[crazyfingers]

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.

That sounds like accumulated knowledge counts for nothing.

But the point is that speech that creates a clear and present danger to others is not protected free speech. Do you accept that legal doctrine? The historical example being that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which creates a dangerous stampede when there is no fire is not protected speech. Do you accept that?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes you can still find Alex Jones on the internet but you have to have the special knowledge of who he is. As a practical matter of convenience, he is off the air for an average person who does not know who he is to begin with. Those people would be found on Youtube who no longer continues his show.

The only special knowledge one needs is to google Alex Jones. So your response makes no sense. Furthermore, if the average person does not know who he is, then they wouldn’t find him on the internet regardless.

 

[RVonse]

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.

That sounds like accumulated knowledge counts for nothing.

But the point is that speech that creates a clear and present danger to others is not protected free speech. Do you accept that legal doctrine? The historical example being that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which creates a dangerous stampede when there is no fire is not protected speech. Do you accept that?

Yes I accept that. But with express conditions being impartially observed as speech causing direct harm to others. That threshold just has not been reached IMO with Alex Jones and google yet.

 

[RVonse]

Yes you can still find Alex Jones on the internet but you have to have the special knowledge of who he is. As a practical matter of convenience, he is off the air for an average person who does not know who he is to begin with. Those people would be found on Youtube who no longer continues his show.

The only special knowledge one needs is to google Alex Jones. So your response makes no sense. Furthermore, if the average person does not know who he is, then they wouldn’t find him on the internet regardless.

Yes they would. And that is exactly how I found him myself on Youtube many years ago. No, I'm not an Alex Jones fan at all. But his content was presented on Youtube as something I might find interesting which is how I found out about him. Probably because I like political content. If a person's content is popular on Youtube the algorithm will show it to you.

It is how I came to know about Matt Tabbi, Joe Rogan, plus many others as well.

 

[crazyfingers]

That sounds like accumulated knowledge counts for nothing.

But the point is that speech that creates a clear and present danger to others is not protected free speech. Do you accept that legal doctrine? The historical example being that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which creates a dangerous stampede when there is no fire is not protected speech. Do you accept that?

Yes I accept that. But with express conditions being impartially observed as speech causing direct harm to others. That threshold just has not been reached IMO with Alex Jones and google yet.

When it comes to twitter, facebook, google, those are private entities. They can censor what ever they want just as this discussion board has rules that can result in people being censored or banned. In my opinion, Jones and Trump and others who spread dangerous lies should have been banned sooner and it would have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects individuals from the government, providing for such exceptions like the clear and present danger doctrine.

 

[Patooka]

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.

Parler, Gab, 4chan, 1d4chan, Stormfront, Telegram. There have been, are still and will always going to be substitutes for Twitter. You appear to be arguing that Twitter must be forced to air Trump's bullshit. Which is about as anti free speech as one can get.

You are advocating for governments to be able to enforce what should and shouldn't be public discourse. And then force private companies to do the government's bidding with regards to expression. That's a shitty argument and is why I am skeptical about online arguments towards free speech nowadays.

 

[RVonse]

That sounds like accumulated knowledge counts for nothing.

But the point is that speech that creates a clear and present danger to others is not protected free speech. Do you accept that legal doctrine? The historical example being that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which creates a dangerous stampede when there is no fire is not protected speech. Do you accept that?

Yes I accept that. But with express conditions being impartially observed as speech causing direct harm to others. That threshold just has not been reached IMO with Alex Jones and google yet.

When it comes to twitter, facebook, google, those are private entities. They can censor what ever they want just as this discussion board has rules that can result in people being censored or banned. In my opinion, Jones and Trump and others who spread dangerous lies should have been banned sooner and it would have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects individuals from the government, providing for such exceptions like the clear and present danger doctrine.

I pretty much agree with what you say here.

The only thing I have pointed out is that certain individuals have been cancelled by google, facebook, and twitter. Maybe they deserved it too. As you and Laughing Dog point out those companies are private entities but that is where I disagree. Because their platforms have become so powerful that as far as the internet is concerned they are defacto monopolies that have the powers to censor public speech. They are in fact so powerful that they have become what the government does. I'm not saying that I don't like Google because I think they are fine company that provides great value. I just do not think they should have the authority and right to cancel people like Alex Jones and President Trump.

Now if someone like our supreme court compels one of these monopolies to cancel Alex Jones or President Trump for shouting in the theater that would be a whole different matter. But that is not what has so far happened.

 

[crazyfingers]

When it comes to twitter, facebook, google, those are private entities. They can censor what ever they want just as this discussion board has rules that can result in people being censored or banned. In my opinion, Jones and Trump and others who spread dangerous lies should have been banned sooner and it would have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects individuals from the government, providing for such exceptions like the clear and present danger doctrine.

I pretty much agree with what you say here.

The only thing I have pointed out is that certain individuals have been cancelled by google, facebook, and twitter. Maybe they deserved it too. As you and Laughing Dog point out those companies are private entities but that is where I disagree. Because their platforms have become so powerful that as far as the internet is concerned they are defacto monopolies that have the powers to censor public speech. They are in fact so powerful that they have become what the government does. I'm not saying that I don't like Google because I think they are fine company that provides great value. I just do not think they should have the authority and right to cancel people like Alex Jones and President Trump.

Now if someone like our supreme court compels one of these monopolies to cancel Alex Jones or President Trump for shouting in the theater that would be a whole different matter. But that is not what has so far happened.

The term "cancel" is too loaded and elastic a term such that it's next to useless. It's as if demonstrating a lie to be a lie is now referred to as canceling.

 

[laughing dog]

Now if someone like our supreme court compels one of these monopolies to cancel Alex Jones or President Trump for shouting in the theater that would be a whole different matter. But that is not what has so far happened.

Helping to incite an insurrection is worse than shouting in a theater.

 

[untermensche]

They can censor what ever they want just as this discussion board has rules that can result in people being censored or banned.

They only censor for one reason.

Not for lies.

But when they deem that lies could cause harm.

No harm has ever once been done at this board.

 

[crazyfingers]

They can censor what ever they want just as this discussion board has rules that can result in people being censored or banned.

They only censor for one reason.

Not for lies.

But when they deem that lies could cause harm.

No harm has ever once been done at this board.

I don't understand your point.

 

[untermensche]

They can censor what ever they want just as this discussion board has rules that can result in people being censored or banned.

They only censor for one reason.

Not for lies.

But when they deem that lies could cause harm.

No harm has ever once been done at this board.

I don't understand your point.

What don't you understand about they only censor if they determine the lies will cause harm?

 

[Bomb#20]

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

And who are you to decide? ... People in a free society deserve to hear all views of a subject especially when they are political in nature. ...

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?

I don't. Neither does the Supreme Court. "Clear and present danger" is a lovely turn of phrase; it has remained in the public consciousness precisely because it's a lovely turn of phrase. But we haven't had that spirit here since 1969. In Brandenburg v. Ohio the SCOTUS adopted a new standard for where free speech ends: "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Doesn't roll off the tongue nearly as nicely, but it's a heck of a lot less vague and open to arbitrary interpretation, so it's a heck of a lot better for human liberty and rule of law.

That sounds like accumulated knowledge counts for nothing.

But the point is that speech that creates a clear and present danger to others is not protected free speech. Do you accept that legal doctrine? The historical example being that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which creates a dangerous stampede when there is no fire is not protected speech. Do you accept that?

But shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which creates a dangerous stampede when there is no fire is not a historical example. That was a hypothetical; it was used as an analogy to justify the "clear and present danger" standard. The actual historical example was Socialists who had been convicted of truthfully telling draftees how they could find lawyers who would help them challenge their conscription into the Army. Government can call anything it bloody well pleases a "clear and present danger".

 

[Trausti]

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?

Questioning the government is a clear and present danger? Jawohl, mein Führer.

 

[untermensche]

Questioning the government is a clear and present danger? Jawohl, mein Führer.

Is that what Trump did?

He just questioned the government?

The government he ran.

Trump is on tape saying he deliberately lied about the danger of COVID.

Then continued to lie about it until this day.

 

[Trausti]

Questioning the government is a clear and present danger? Jawohl, mein Führer.

Is that what Trump did?

He just questioned the government?

The government he ran.

Trump is on tape saying he deliberately lied about the danger of COVID.

Then continued to lie about it until this day.

Are you seriously advocating that questioning / criticizing the government or a politician is a clear and present danger?

 

[untermensche]

Questioning the government is a clear and present danger? Jawohl, mein Führer.

Is that what Trump did?

He just questioned the government?

The government he ran.

Trump is on tape saying he deliberately lied about the danger of COVID.

Then continued to lie about it until this day.

Are you seriously advocating that questioning / criticizing the government or a politician is a clear and present danger?

I am claiming that is a strawman.

 

[KeepTalking]

When it comes to twitter, facebook, google, those are private entities. They can censor what ever they want just as this discussion board has rules that can result in people being censored or banned. In my opinion, Jones and Trump and others who spread dangerous lies should have been banned sooner and it would have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects individuals from the government, providing for such exceptions like the clear and present danger doctrine.

I pretty much agree with what you say here.

The only thing I have pointed out is that certain individuals have been cancelled by google, facebook, and twitter. Maybe they deserved it too. As you and Laughing Dog point out those companies are private entities but that is where I disagree. Because their platforms have become so powerful that as far as the internet is concerned they are defacto monopolies that have the powers to censor public speech. They are in fact so powerful that they have become what the government does.

Can you explain what you mean by this? In what way have they become what the government does?

I'm not saying that I don't like Google because I think they are fine company that provides great value. I just do not think they should have the authority and right to cancel people like Alex Jones and President Trump.

Now if someone like our supreme court compels one of these monopolies to cancel Alex Jones or President Trump for shouting in the theater that would be a whole different matter. But that is not what has so far happened.

Assuming that you are referring to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Why do you imagine that is the way it should work? If a theater gets wind of a person in their capacity crowd who is planning to yell "fire" at some random point during the movie, should they have to take a case to SCOTUS before they can remove that person from the theater? Meanwhile, before they can even find a lawyer to file suit, the person has yelled "fire" leading to several people being trampled to death in the rush for the exits. And that is leaving aside the fact that the first amendment says nothing about theaters ejecting unruly persons from their premises, as they are private property.