Free speech on both sides of the pond

by Maddog Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:57 pm

I don't know the British guy, but I'm very familiar with Nick.

It's an hour long, but really quite interesting and entertaining.

Kick back, open your mind and give it a watch when you get a chance.

Or watch it in bits between other activities.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:55 pm

Watched a little bit of it, looked interesting, will try to watch some more a bit later or tomorrow.

by eddie Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:10 pm

I would rather read a nutshell of it all than watch a video....

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:13 pm

I want to know how they know what all Millennials hate, for one. I'd also like to know what age range they consider to be Millennials, because the oldest of that generation are turning 40 this year.

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:17 pm

Okay -- and I realize I'm reacting a lot to a video I haven't even watched -- but I also want to know if they know that if kicking someone off social media is a denial of free speech, so is throwing someone out of your house when you're tired of listening to them.

by Didgee Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:59 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay -- and I realize I'm reacting a lot to a video I haven't even watched -- but I also want to know if they know that if kicking someone off social media is a denial of free speech, so is throwing someone out of your house when you're tired of listening to them.

1) first point would be based on arbitrary rules of the social media platform they are on. I have certainly been a victim of such daft rullings on here

2) as to your second point, if someone is trespassing, of course you can throw them out

by Original Quill Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:13 pm

Didgee wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Okay -- and I realize I'm reacting a lot to a video I haven't even watched -- but I also want to know if they know that if kicking someone off social media is a denial of free speech, so is throwing someone out of your house when you're tired of listening to them.

1) first point would be based on arbitrary rules of the social media platform they are on. I have certainly been a victim of such daft rullings on here

The concept of free speech in the US Constitution is as against governments (federal, state and/or local), not private concerns:

US Constitution wrote: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.

A social media platform is a private concern. It appears to look like some sort of civic entity, and we sometimes grow indignant when it does not follow due process norms, but it is really in the nature of private property.

by Didgee Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didgee wrote:

1) first point would be based on arbitrary rules of the social media platform they are on. I have certainly been a victim of such daft rullings on here

The concept of free speech in the US Constitution is as against governments (federal, state and/or local), not private concerns:

US Constitution wrote: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.

A social media platform is a private concern. It appears to look like some sort of civic entity, and we sometimes grow indignant when it does not follow due process norms, but it is really in the nature of private property.

And yet when a social media platform censors what can be learned from its platform, then it breaks the first amendment

Its not a private concern, if and how that platform is now a major outlets of news information

I mean its odd how all social media outlets tried to suppress a view that coiid started in the labs in china

This view has changed, so why did social media outlets try to suppress this?

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:27 pm

As defined by the first amendment, the only entity that can violate the first amendment is the U.S. government. It's a rule that Congress has to follow, not private citizens.

Freedom of speech is really misunderstood. It's a right to speak -- but not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire -- and certainly not a right to force publishers to publish your expression. Social media outlets are still publishers and as such, they still have the right to reject things submitted for publication.

Some people these days seem to think that freedom isn't only a right to speak, but a right to be published and a right to be listened to!

by Didgee Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:31 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:As defined by the first amendment, the only entity that can violate the first amendment is the U.S. government. It's a rule that Congress has to follow, not private citizens.

Freedom of speech is really misunderstood. It's a right to speak -- but not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire -- and certainly not a right to force publishers to publish your expression. Social media outlets are still publishers and as such, they still have the right to reject things submitted for publication.

Some people these days seem to think that freedom isn't only a right to speak, but a right to be published and a right to be listened to!

But you offer up one of the only extremes where free speech is not permitted Ben

In the vast majority of cases it is and rightly so free speech

Its why I have the biggest respect for free speech laws in America

When a society tries to curtail what people can say, they become more and more so authoritarian

by eddie Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:35 am

I hate free speech being silenced. It’s one of my biggest bugbears.
If we don’t have free speech what the fuck is going to happen to society? We will simply become polite little nobodies, bland, boring and predictable.

by Maddog Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:52 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I want to know how they know what all Millennials hate, for one. I'd also like to know what age range they consider to be Millennials, because the oldest of that generation are turning 40 this year.

No one said ALL.

by Maddog Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:54 pm

eddie wrote:I would rather read a nutshell of it all than watch a video....

It's an interview with multiple nutshells.

I usually prefer reading too, but transcripts of interviews can ne tedious too.

by Maddog Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:56 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:As defined by the first amendment, the only entity that can violate the first amendment is the U.S. government. It's a rule that Congress has to follow, not private citizens.

Freedom of speech is really misunderstood. It's a right to speak -- but not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire -- and certainly not a right to force publishers to publish your expression. Social media outlets are still publishers and as such, they still have the right to reject things submitted for publication.

Some people these days seem to think that freedom isn't only a right to speak, but a right to be published and a right to be listened to!

That is addressed in the video.

by Maddog Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:59 pm

This is why I was hesitant about posting this here. People have plenty of time to post on a subject, but not enough to inform themselves about the subject matter.

It is a long video, so I sort of figured this would happen.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:54 pm

Didgee wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The concept of free speech in the US Constitution is as against governments (federal, state and/or local), not private concerns:

A social media platform is a private concern. It appears to look like some sort of civic entity, and we sometimes grow indignant when it does not follow due process norms, but it is really in the nature of private property.

And yet when a social media platform censors what can be learned from its platform, then it breaks the first amendment

No, it doesn't. There may be laws that qualify broadcasts, such as the equal time rule, §315(b) of the Communications Act, but that is mere law, not a constitutional mandate - and it doesn't go to the content. The government is involved because it regulates the airwaves.

Government takes no interest in private communications, over private platforms. The First Amendment doesn't even apply to private social media platforms, as it only prohibits Congress and (via incorporation) other governments. Private social media platforms are free to censor and/or regulate at will.

Didge wrote:Its not a private concern, if and how that platform is now a major outlets of news information

No government, including Congress, has tried to impose dominion over social media. Again, as with the Communications Act, it can only govern access, not content. That's why these profa platforms get away with all their lies...eg, The Big Lie.

by Sponsored content

Free speech on both sides of the pond

Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond

Re: Free speech on both sides of the pond