171–180 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should spend some time on a college campus. Shouting down speakers and deplatforming non-progressives is more common than one might think.
That is perfectly in line with freedom of speech. Is the government showing up and arresting the speakers? No? Then freedom of speech is intact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> > people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery > Literally no one does that. You are imagining things. You are obviously not a serious participant here. These people exist. They existed before the internet, and the internet has, to my great disappointment, only enabled their spread. There's a ton you could read, but maybe start with Neiwert's "God's Country" and "Alt-America", wh…
Would you do it? Would you call him outright insane? Would you dismiss him and move on?
Genuine question, I am honestly curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not new in the digital realm. Speech has always had social consequences: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/
it did not have the legal consequence of depriving one of their money.
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
How many immigrants do you think grew up the same way? Hint: almost none, as the United States is the only country that enshrines true freedom of speech as an unalienable and fundamental right. This is probably considered "hate-speech" in this day and age, but immigration, shockingly, has cons as well.
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…
In 2022, most speech happens on the internet, so if that's outside the ever shrinking "free speech zone", free speech is practically dying. Also, it's easy to be smug about this when it's only nazis and other despicables from "the other side" being silenced. But once these tools exist, whoever is in power will gleefully use them against those who cheered when they were being "deplatformed".
anybody can use the internet to communicate.
social media companies are not the internet.
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
Is Freedom of Speech important for a democratic society to survive? Right wing extremists would say yes. In fact, this is why they believe we shouldn't allow low cognitive ability immigrants into the country or let them vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…
> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? That sounds like the logic behind "free speech zones". Yeah, we're not blocking protests, or arresting legal protesters. You just have to protest in a designated area 5 miles away where it won't disrupt everyone.
It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
It still is a virtue and a right in the US. Freedom of speech is not about giving every idea and every person and equal platform to spread their ideas. It's not about forcing others to host/spread ideas they disagree with. I think the internet has given people a warped sense about what freedom of speech is. We have no less freedom of speech now than we did before social media/internet.
These days a lot of public discourse is online and increasingly so. The argument that companies being forced to host ideas they disagree with can be construed as a free speech issue is reasonable (although not entirely convincing, as we clearly do find utility companies to be providing a service so essential that they can't arbitrarily refuse service), but equally there is the problem that the vagueness of the matter is being abused by small groups of people, thus not really leaving it as a free 'market' of ideas.
Nowadays a small group of people can do a ton of damage to someone simply by harassing the companies (and the clients of those companies) they rely on, taking it all the way to even getting bank accounts closed or cutting off payment processors. One can imagine that if water and electricity weren't classified as utilities they'd even go after those. Thus, some balance is needed because while it's technically possible to live without banking or to have a business without a (well known) payment processor, it's clearly an increasingly unreasonable limitation to be able to be imposed on anyone without a legal process.
Beyond that there's the point that social media companies often act as per the government's "suggestions", thus technically not violating the first amendment despite not really being in its spirit either. Facebook and/or Twitter doesn't legally have to do X when government hints at wanting it but if they don't they might happen to find themselves brought in front of Congress for a hearing about Y or facing regulation/investigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery > Literally no one does that. You are imagining things. You are obviously not a serious participant here. These people exist. They existed before the internet, and the internet has, to my great disappointment, only enabled their spread. There's a ton you could read, but maybe start with Neiwert's "God's Country" and "Alt-America", wh…
Tell me, how would you respond to a fanatical preacher telling you to go read the scriptures? Would you do it? Would you call him outright insane? Would you dismiss him and move on? Genuine question, I am honestly curious.