601–610 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting site if you are concerned about media bias- https://www.allsides.com/media-bias
An excellent example of the Overton Window. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" 1) Free speech is meant to protect those that don't have a monopoly on speech " You lost me here. How can the government have a monopoly on speech if we're talking about the government being prevented from saying things by a judge?
> How can the government have a monopoly on speech if we're talking about the government being prevented from saying things by a judge? The judicial branch is supposed to be independent by design[1], so it's of the government, but not quite the government. [1] https://judiciallearningcenter.org/judicial-independence/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that’s definitely not true. The government can suppress speech when it sends an emergency action alert to commandeer tv and radio stations during an emergency, for one example. The fact is that the means employed make every bit of difference when it comes to whether or not the content based speech restriction is tailored as narrowly as possible to achieve a compelling government interest. On the other hand, may…
Emergency announcements or orders have to be temporary and limited in scope. They also couldn't target specific channels on talk radio just because they have a made up emergency. Meanwhile the emergency broadcast rules that were created in early tv and radio era definitely don't apply to social media, given that they are discretionary, asynchronous forms of communication, and there's no lack of bandwidth as there was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because freedom of speech isn't absolute, and whether "the government did a bad thing" is the very question being asked, to which reasonable people may disagree. With over a million COVID deaths in the US, there's a very valid question to be raised as to when emergency public health requirements take precedence over a right to spread misinformation/disinformation. Freedom of speech isn't of much use when you're dead.…
It’s one thing to officially commandeer media outlets during an emergency. That’s in-bounds. That’s not what happened here and therefore not what the debate is about.
Governments spreading information or halting disinformation exists on a spectrum. This is precisely about where it exists on the spectrum and about balancing rights against harms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol I gotta say I've been trying to read the defenders of this and take them seriously but your incredulity matches mine... .. and people are replying to you and _still_ defending the government and think they should have unilateral power over their people I'm kind of speechless about how many people think this ruling is a bad thing.. like who in the hell out there believes the government should have OPINIONS? Can on…
I mean if you can drone strike a citizen as president there is little left to have in the toolbox of "unilateral power over their people". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so then we can agree that the gov definitely is engaging in illegal violations of first amendment rights! Looks like you agree with the judge here from the article.
Looks like you've still failed to articulate the credible implied threat Facebook felt from the Biden administration's requests, or how that ties in with the GOP-controlled senate bringing the CEOs before them: did they do that because the Biden administration ordered them to, as a result of Facebook ignoring one of the requests? It's a laughably bipartisan conspiracy theory, and thus nobody would actually feel threa…
In fact it actually proves the point, you just also thing the other party infringed on people's rights as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it unconstitutional? Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says that the President shall nominate, with the advice and consent of the Senate […] judges. The Senate did not consent, so Merrick Garland was not given a confirmation hearing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Just because you perform the rituals of democracy doesn't mean you get democracy. If voting doesn't result in representation, then the act of voting is just a ritual and not an exertion of political power. You're saying because we performed a ritual around judges, we should be getting the result we want, or judges that represent America at large. You're so focused on rituals you are missing the bigger picture. That i…
I don’t agree with Mitch McConnell’s decision to refuse to have a hearing for Merrick Garland. I’m just saying it’s not against the Constitution as it is written. If the Obama Administration thought they had a legal right to force a hearing on Merrick Garland in the Senate, they would’ve filed a lawsuit to force the issue. The fact that they didn’t tells me that what McConnell and the GOP did wasn't illegal. It may have arguably been immoral and unethical, but it wasn’t illegal, and that was the point of my post that you responded to.
This thread baffles me. There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc. A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens. Freedom of speech…
The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…
I am currently reading The Brothers Karamazov and recorded a couple quotes from the chapter I'm currently in (Book V: Pro and Contra, Chapter 5: The Grand Inquisitor) about freedom and religion, which seem too poignant to pass up right now. Not that I think religion is the answer to the problem. Here's one of my favorites:
"So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it...what is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and all of humanity from the beginning of time."
This just tells me that there is no solution to this foible of human nature and that we are doomed to a future of dissatisfaction, and we'll invent endless ways to keep fighting.
I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm just so tired, it seems so obvious, yet the path is not clear at all.
This thread baffles me. There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc. A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens. Freedom of speech…