Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Give an example?
[flagged]
A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
161–165 of 165 posts
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. I would absolutely not.
So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech? Or say I run a newspaper, I have to print every editorial letter somebody sends in? I can't pick and choose? Do I as the platform owner lose my free speech?
>So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech?
Question: What if ...contrived example...
Answer: you can do the contrived example. Porn is porn, spam is spam. Editorial sections have limited space (even on an online newspaper). And newspapers aren't social media platforms. A newspaper can have an editorial voice.
I'm not sure why the need for contrived examples. You don't have to consider porn or spam as free speech, and that's that. Is it a uniquely US thing to think of it that way (like the pedantic "fire in a crowded theater" arguments)?
If you're a platform and someone has a political theory or some social observation, however, you should treat it as a manner of free speech. If it's an erotic work, you can debate whether it's art or porn, and if art, should treet is as a matter of free speech.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech? Or say I run a newspaper, I have to print every editorial letter somebody sends in? I can't pick and choose? Do I as the platform owner lose my free speech?
> So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech? Question: What if ...contrived example... Answer: you can do the contrived example. Porn is porn, spam is spam. Editorial sections have limited space (even on an online newspaper). And newspapers aren't social media platforms. A newspaper can have an editorial voice. I'm not sure why the need fo…
How are these contrived examples? Every subreddit, every discord, even this very site will run into these same issues.
Maybe the confusion here is around what you consider a "platform"?
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#164JAWBONE == Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression. Max Kudos. Ron and Ted owe a staffer (or staffers) a few drinks.
I think it should be illegal to make the name of any bill an acronym
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. That is not a general principle. Consider the following: it is now illegal to say the word “election” because it would harm the President.
Is that really what you think I said? It’s probably more productive to read with the goal to understand rather than the goal to misunderstand.
Yes, that’s how I read your comment. There are narrow circumstances but no general principle. To generalize from narrow circumstances is simply misguided, so I commented.