Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Get a grip, or better yet, go back and see what I was quoting and who I was talking to.
I'm not sure what the hell your problem is, but clearly your mad, and clearly you've proven my point. Not sure why you jump into someone else's discussion and take it personal, try reading it again and see if you can catch up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman
You call a public forum "someone else's discussion?...that's FUNNY!!!
Maybe THAT is what YOUR problem is
You couldn't say anything that I would take personal!...and I might just "jump into" the discussion again..though It's become obvious that you would love to censor me.
Public forum?? Don't limit yourself. There's an entire internet you can pluck a single bit of information from without knowing what it means. What I was clearly talking about was how you took one bit of information out of context without relating it in anyway to what I was referring to.
Everyone has the Right to Freedom of Expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
However there are some limitations to this Right
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I think we should censor the writings of people who endorse any form of government censorship. They are a threat to the very fabric of who we are as a nation.
Here you go, just for the record, Ill make it really clear. Heres how the conversation went.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer
I think that someone should immediately apply duct tape to the mouth of whacko huckster Donald Trump before he says anything else nasty and hateful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
What you hear and what I hear when we listen to the same thing (I am assuming of course that you do actually listen) are obviously incredibly different. I find that fascinating. I have never heard him say anything I would classify as nasty or hateful - and believe me, I have tried hard to find that - especially because I also keep listening to people who hear him the way you seem to - and I would like to understand how we can hear the same thing in a totally different way. Do you think personal bias may come into play at all? Or maybe one of us (not me) has wax in his ears?
Critical thinking is probably much more important than censorship. And self-determination in choosing what to listen to or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver
So if I told you to go FU** yourself... no problem?
Heres where you felt the need to jump in, and it looks like you clearly didn't understand the previous conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman
It's wouldn't be my problem man....it'd be YOURS!!!
Try it on a few people and see what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman
No one has to listen...your examples of free speech are ridiculous at best.
Believe me when I say your above example would/could result in some very PERSONAL retaliation...you can call it censorship if you want to....I would call it much needed behaviour modification.
The rioting in Charlotte as I write this is a good example of when there should be censorship. As soon as the thug with the gun was shot and his sister started with the "He didn't have a gun. He had a book!" nonsense it should have been censored. Had she made statements that were CORRECT and FACTUAL, then she should have been allowed to make them. Instead, she incited violence with her FICTITIOUS statements.
I was listening to a podcast with some guy that used to work for CIA. He was talking about how some censorship of information in name of national security is necessary but the problem is it snowballs and it leads to people in government censoring info that is not vital to national security like backroom deals for campaign donations and stuff. Justifying any censorship leads to abuse of power like anything
No, it's never acceptable or justified. Ideas that prompt people to censor are precisley the ones that need the protection provided by the first amendment. You don't need that protection for saying non-controversial things, no one will bat an eye.
The rioting in Charlotte as I write this is a good example of when there should be censorship. As soon as the thug with the gun was shot and his sister started with the "He didn't have a gun. He had a book!" nonsense it should have been censored. Had she made statements that were CORRECT and FACTUAL, then she should have been allowed to make them. Instead, she incited violence with her FICTITIOUS statements.
In the USSR they had freedom of speech... provided that speech was true.
This is what free speech is all about, if you choose to visit those forums!!!!!!!!! However, to deny others from having the choice to do so because you choose not to and it offends you, well, that's a whole different ballgame.
How are you being denied the ability to visit forum that allow any and all behaviors?
Why do you think you have a right to agree to Terms of Service, from a private company, and then do whatever you want?
Suppose a friend invites you to their home, but says "you have to be quiet, the baby is sleeping". Does freedom of speech give you the right to scream and yell? Yes. Does it prevent your friend from making you leave and never inviting you over again? No.
Forums that are owned by private entities, are much like private property, they get to determine the rules for their "property". If you don't like their rules, they have the right to tell you to bugger off.
I'm talking censorship about where our tax dollers go (I wanna know).....I'm taking censorship where the media gives you half truths and lies...I'm talking censorship from pharm comps that keep from you the truth on the toxicities in their products....I'm talking the attempted censorship of whislteblowers who expose gov corruption, as they risk their lives to tell us the truth.
Most media is privately owned. Most big pharma are corporations that are not publicly owned. Freedom of speech does not apply as we have already established.
As for the "whistleblower", most true whistleblower activities are protected speech, even when up against confidentiality agreements. So can you please give an example of what you are referring to when you say someone's life is risked for exposing "government corruption".
Quote:
I want to be able to hear the whole story...all sides...then act accordingly.
You appear to be demanding private citizens and entities giving you full disclosure. That isn't freedom of speech. No private entity owes you full disclosure. I am not sure why you think they do. And it certainly isnt some protected right of yours. Freedom of speech does not mean compulsion to speak.
Quote:
You must be perfectly happy receiving what someone else decides you are worthy of hearing...of course it's to protect your sensitivities, as the whole truth may be hard to digest, and so, for you,... sticking to censored sites and news might be the right thing.
Of course I am content to allow private entities to disclose or not based on what the choose to share. How bizarre is it that you think anyone owes you access to everything you wish to know just because you wish to know it.
Quote:
Do you think when someone wants to know the truth, it's because they enjoy "civil discourse" ?
Truth? You seem to be confused about what freedom of speech is and is not. The right to privacy trumps your right to want to know whatever it is you think you are owed. The exception being the expectation (and it is not a right) to transparency (inherently limited) within your government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
though It's become obvious that you would love to censor me.
