631–640 of 783 posts
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…
I'm obviously not saying the means never make a difference in any case. I'm talking about this case. I'm saying that using minimal means does not make an unconstitutional action acceptable; you're pointing out that using excessive means can make a constitutional action unacceptable. That's a different situation and not really a reply to my comment or this case. To make it more relevant, can you point to a single case…
I think that's self-contradictory: if the court permitted it, then it did not cross the limits.
If you meant this more broadly, then we should understand that ALL government actions are constitutionally limited and the more an action infringes upon liberty, the more the action should be "narrowly tailored", but actions can still be permitted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather the platforms be treated as common carriers That's called the internet. Corporations having the right to censor is no better than the government. Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one. There is only one government that applies to someone at any one time and they have a monopoly on violence. In a common carrier world, the government censoring private individuals would go against…
> Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one. Please tell me how to start a Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, or Twitter and reach their scale and engagement. Preferably up and running with billions of users by tomorrow . Your suggestion is implausible and denies the reality that these entities are entrenched and more or less here to stay. > If you hate censorship so much why are you on ha…
You can start a site and say what you want. You aren't entitled to have a wide audience. If no one wants to broadcast or read what you say, too bad.
You want me to leave because I hate censorship?
Read what I wrote again and pay closer attention, I don't care what you do, the question is if you care about the censorship on the site you are posting on now.
"If you don't like America, then leave."
I never said that, I asked why you were using a heavily censored site while being against censorship.
Not all discourse turns to "Nazism"
I also never said this, read again. You can look at voat, slashdot, zero hedge and 4chan knockoffs, and there is tons of nazi spam along with other terrible stuff that people don't want to read and sites don't want to broadcast.
If people don't want to broadcast it and other people don't want to ever see it, but you allow it anyway, that drives away users. No one is going to allow that on a site they control. You can go make your own site but you aren't entitled to an audience.
The ideal social media system is a p2p protocol that nobody can exert undue control or influence over.
That's been done and it gets over run with spam if people can message other people without explicitly connecting first.
My argument stands.
You didn't actually make an argument and you didn't back anything up with evidence at all. You just said you wanted big sites to not have any moderation.
>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…
I’m definitely not a fan of Trump and I was also suspicious. But after reading the article, I don’t see anything objectionable with it especially with the carve outs. But censorship pressure very much happened on “both sides”. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, I guess we are being ultra-literal. Which is fine! > I'm in favour of more bike lanes in my city but I don't consider that an opinion ...I do not understand why not. To my perception that is very much the definition of an opinion. But anyway, we clearly have a bunch of different definitions in play here. I think we can safely agree to disagree.
It's not an opinion because IMO you need a why for an opinion. There's an implicit why most of the time. But Facebook supporting marketing because they make more money with marketing can be a verified fact - there's no opinion element in it and I don't think Facebook supporting marketing by itself is an opinion. If you like rain because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factua…
That's just your opinion. Others are of the opinion that corporations are in fact people and deserve all the protections that people deserve regarding free speech. Some such people even sit on the Supreme Court! Materialists would even go so far as to argue countries are conscious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a right to speak freely, duties you agree to abide by as an employee, laws you must follow, and an obligation to respect the constitution and the rights of citizens. The fact that you can't in your official capacity promote Jeebus means your conduct must not infringe on the rights of others not that you have no rights at all.
It is that infringement of the rights of others which is the very issue at hand here! The government undertook actions which caused people to be unable to express their opinions. That the government was "just expressing their opinion that's totally nonbinding except of course I can exert selective regulatory scrutiny if I feel like it" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
You do have a right to share that same content on your own website and the government would have no right to make you take it down.
In no cases were people unable to express their opinions. They were unable to create posts or comments contrary to the terms of service of the site they were using to share said opinions. Much like neither of US may herein violate the terms of Hacker News.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional Well, maybe, if you ignore the Constitutional carte blanche for Congressional proceedings of the Article I Speech and Debate Clause.
If you prefer, it'd make a whole bunch of press conferences unconstitutional. It's quite common for elected officials to criticize private citizens and businesses. To be concrete: Ted Cruz (and a bunch of others) publicly pressured the NFL over players kneeling at games, in a clear attempt to suppress First Amendment expression by said players, without any hint of consequences.
They can criticize all they like.
What they can't do is order the political speech of citizens be censored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naw, just redefined to something which allows complete freedom of speech... so long as it's the right speech.
Which is the entire point of the first amendment. You don’t need to protect popular speech from censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm obviously not saying the means never make a difference in any case. I'm talking about this case. I'm saying that using minimal means does not make an unconstitutional action acceptable; you're pointing out that using excessive means can make a constitutional action unacceptable. That's a different situation and not really a reply to my comment or this case. To make it more relevant, can you point to a single case…
Ok. I’m glad you’re not saying that; I think it means we are coming at this similarly. You can choose how compelling the interest is, but my take was that the government has a compelling interest in free and fair elections. Or in making sure a pandemic is handled well. My hourly rate for research is higher than you probably expect! But your question is super interesting so I will try to answer it this evening. You mi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"dude who used a swear word"? You left a bit out here. He is a representative of the government demanding that a private company censor speech supporting policies it opposes and speech about the president's family among other things. "A February 2021 message in which Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account related to Hunter Biden's daughter said, 'Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved…
“Lock her up” I didn’t know that impersonating a public figure was acceptable according to twitter’s terms of service. Perhaps there was special consideration that permitted an impersonator to remain on the platform?