91–100 of 112 posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is "current perception" really common, or just what the loudest voices demand? And even if it is common, in my opinion the very idea of free speech is that it may go beyond the commonly held notions of acceptability. It seems kind of pointless otherwise - what's widely accepted already shouldn't really need much protection. Eg. penalization of blasphemy in theocratic societies surely passes the test of "freedom of sp…
That question of current perception is IMO a political question, and leaving it to Facebook to answer is what's wrong. Merkel's done the right thing: She has tried to answer it, and bring the laws into line with what the Germans think currently think is just. (With which I may or may not agree, it doesn't matter, I'm not German.) Her attempt may or may not be a good attempt, but she did try. The Americans talk about…
Having the government govern free speech doesn't get you free speech. If the problem is social media companies that are so large they suck up all the air in the room then solve THAT problem and enforce existing anti-monopoly laws.
We don't need the government to govern free speech, but defending our rights is the reason the United States government exists, according to the men who created it.
Let's see what will come from this.
The modern state is based on the exclusive authority of the state to be violent, and the final dispenser of rights.
When a private utility takes away the right to digital expression, which is a pretty fundamental right in the 2020s, one could make a pretty solid case that Trump's free speech rights have been taken away by private individuals or corps without a court ruling on it.
Digital rights are (at the moment) not covered by any of the articles in the constitution, nor is it covered by any UN or multi-lateral conventions, so this event may lead to some changes.
The point here is not about whether it was right or wrong to muzzle Trump & his supporters, but whether a private corp has the same rights as a court to affect individual freedom.
Having the government govern free speech doesn't get you free speech. If the problem is social media companies that are so large they suck up all the air in the room then solve THAT problem and enforce existing anti-monopoly laws.
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." We don't need the government to govern free speech, but defending our rights…
> “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That question of current perception is IMO a political question, and leaving it to Facebook to answer is what's wrong. Merkel's done the right thing: She has tried to answer it, and bring the laws into line with what the Germans think currently think is just. (With which I may or may not agree, it doesn't matter, I'm not German.) Her attempt may or may not be a good attempt, but she did try. The Americans talk about…
I think the difference is that while it may not be entirely practical to replace Twitter or Facebook as the primary means of discourse, it is certainly more practical than replacing the government. Twitter and Facebook imposing their own flavors of information censorship is a lot less dangerous than the government doing it universally.
Merkel's government was able to propose law changes and have them be voted on by the legislature. Replacing government was not needed.
Many of these weren't places trump or republicans really were. They are just banning trump supporters.
As republicans left those platforms, big tech also removed the new place Parler in a coordinated method. With shortage on servers, they aren't going to be getting back up and running anytime soon.
At the end of the day this isn't about censorship. Trump for all it matters could post to his own website. He's not stopped from getting out his message.
The more important reality here is that big tech clearly played their cards. What used to be a political divide that was entirely democrats is now both.
If you thought the political divide in the USA was bad before the election. It's now worse than ever. This is about silencing political opposition.
Oh and in the next 2 years you can expect the NRA will be disbanding. Right to bear arms will be getting shut down.
What do you think the republicans are going to do? I don't know. Will it be civil war? I dont think so.
How about the election in 2 years? Anyone think there will be a free and fair election?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's Twitter supposed to do? There's likely real legal liability here. Trump has said whatever he wanted on Twitter, true or not, for the better part of a decade. When that speech translated into violence that killed at least 6 including a police officer, what's a company supposed to do? Also, Free speech protections don't apply to private platforms. Only a government run equivalent of Twitter would be.
Twitter has zero liability except their profits and an anti-trust investigation which I’m sure the new president will be a lot less likely to pursue at this point. And did you just call out 6 deaths which include a guy who tased himself, a cop who died of a random stroke and a woman shot in the throat for being there? Come on. And yes, the 1st amendment restricts the govt but it’s hypocritical as hell for a company t…
I'm not sure I agree
> And did you just call out 6 deaths which include a guy who tased himself, a cop who died of a random stroke and a woman shot in the throat for being there? Come on.
I also left out the 25 injured officers
> And yes, the 1st amendment restricts the govt but it’s hypocritical as hell for a company to espouse it’s commitment to free speech all the while censoring undesirable opinions.
The opinions were 100% fine until the platform was used as a way to rally supporters to violence. Twitter has gone out if it's way to carve out harassment exemptions for the President who has used the platform for everything from outright lies to falsely accusing people of murder because they spoke out against him.
This was a case of someone using Twitter in a way that would lead to any of us being banned years ago. Nobody spoke up when someone I know got banned from Twitter for retweeting a joke about Antifa planning to launch an attack on small business owners.
But don't Germany and France both have actual laws against offensive speech on the internet that allows the government itself to compel social media websites to delete people's content? Their feigned concern over Twitter excercising its 1st Amendment rights seems a bit hypocritical here.