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.
Tell me if you think people should be able to do the following things and claim it is protected "free speech".
1. Publish the names and addresses of all American covert spies and CIA agents residing in foreign countries.
2. Publish plans on how to make an atomic bomb.
3. Publish details of the designs of our newest naval ships, newest combat aircraft, and newest protective armor that our troops wear in battle.
4. Publish in advance the details of presidential visits to Afghanistan and other countries where combat operations may be going on.
I would say it is clear to anyone, but the smallest minority of people in this country that there is a category of information that I would call "state secrets" that cannot/should not be published. Disseminating this material is not a protected exercise of "free speech".
I'm not even getting into other categories like inciting violence. But the "absolute" approach to the First Amendment is not the law in this country.
False equivalence, which is a logical fallacy. Publishing classified information has nothing to do with being able to speak freely and offer your opinions on any topic, including violence and its appropriate use.
You are conflating the freedom to express ideas and opinions with the act of disclosing specific proprietary or classified information.
And everything Manson said was fine, until he actually did something. We cannot and should not censor ideas or speech in any way. All ideas and words must be on the table. I am not interested in what you don’t want to hear. I literally don’t care what you don’t want to hear. As long as conduct and actions remain legal, any and all speech should be free and unfettered. People should be free to express any opinion, including opinions on the appropriate use of violence. We need to be free to talk about ANYTHING.
So if someone goes on twitter or YouTube and is trying to recruit others to carry out terrorist acts against public officials or government buildings and they have a plan to carry it out that is free speech and should be allowed? Twitter and YouTube should not be allowed to stop them?
No. Taking impressionable people and brainwashing them is not fine. There are lots of mentally ill people, immature people, etc. Most of the people who stormed the capital had financial problems. So you take essentially losers with nothing left to lose and fire them up with incendiary rhetoric you end up with the mess in Washington or what happened with the Manson Family. You don't have to tell them exactly what to do you just fire them up and set them loose.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 02-11-2021 at 09:54 AM..
So you are saying that if someone goes on social media and says they just got fired and say they are going back and shooting everyone at their former job that is ok until they show up there and do that. We need to ignore it if we don't like the words and let it happen?
No. Taking impressionable people and brainwashing them is not fine. There are lots of mentally ill people, immature people, etc. Most of the people who stormed the capital had financial problems. So you take essentially losers with nothing left to lose and fire them up with incendiary rhetoric you end up with the mess in Washington or what happened with the Manson Family. You don't have to tell them exactly what to do you just fire them up and set them loose.
Too bad. That’s the cost of a free society. I am not interested in your idle predictions and protests. All speech should be free and unfettered.
If an actual crime is being planned and that can be proven, there are conspiracy laws to deal with that.
But ALL opinions are on the table including those that one person or another might view as offensive.
So if someone goes on twitter or YouTube and is trying to recruit others to carry out terrorist acts against public officials or government buildings and they have a plan to carry it out that is free speech and should be allowed? Twitter and YouTube should not be allowed to stop them?
No. Taking impressionable people and brainwashing them is not fine. There are lots of mentally ill people, immature people, etc. Most of the people who stormed the capital had financial problems. So you take essentially losers with nothing left to lose and fire them up with incendiary rhetoric you end up with the mess in Washington or what happened with the Manson Family. You don't have to tell them exactly what to do you just fire them up and set them loose.
Twitter and Youtube are private property and they should be able to censor anything they want for any or no reason.
Freedom of speech only applies to protection from the State. The State cannot censor. But private companies can. That’s correct in a free society.
If you can prove actual and specific acts of conspiracy to commit crimes, we have laws for that already on the books.
But freedom of expression and speech should be as close to absolute as possible. The usual hackneyed “fire in a theater” cases are usually trotted out, but they are irrelevant to the meaning and spirit of free speech: being allowed to express your views, no matter how offensive or contrarian to conventional sensibility. THAT is what needs protection from the tyranny of the majority, or today, the minority.
Censorship is not simply preventing the equal rights of some to have their say in the new information age (ie; restricting some Twitter, Facebook and other accounts). It is ALSO about dominating the airways with partisan political rhetoric ... and in-effect, 'censoring' contradictory speech.
Most have been indoctrinated into the belief that even the slightest censorship of free-speech is an abhorrent practices with no place in a free republic. But, those views were birthed in a society where listeners could only turn-on one or two 5:00/10:00 pm news channels or read the views of one or two area newspapers . The 'media' in those times could only influence a narrow regional audience.
Today, the 24/7 media manipulation of what the public is able to hear/see (repeated over and over), has never been greater. These last four years have been the very embodiment of Orwell's 1984 utopian society, where the 'thought police' dealt harshly with any opposing views. Have you noticed the mainstream media now has very little of any substance to report, since Trump was ousted? That's because they have lost all ability to spin truth (and news), since it might require presenting ANY the left as anything but absolutely right in any manner. Of course, this now eliminates all 2-sided 'political commentary' about the House, Senate or Executive branches. As soon as the politically motivated "impeachment charade" is over, the media will become even more of a one-sided 'echo-chamber.'
By 'any and every' means, the liberals eliminated the checks and balances that have so long prevented a one-sided, legislative steam roller from squashing any opposition. They imagine they have advanced the freedom of America, but, in squelching all opposing views, have actually created the very 'censorship of free speech' they presumed themselves trying to avoid.
While most of the discussion about free speech is in the abstract, the practical reality is that the EFFECTIVENESS of exercising free speech has changed enormously in the last 150 years.
In 1870 the free speech of one individual could be transmitted to:
- a few dozen by word of mouth, letter, or telegram
- a few thousand by newspaper
- tens of thousands by publishing a book
By 1940 the free speech of some individuals could be transmitted to:
- hundreds of thousands by radio
By 1970 the free speech of some individuals could be transmitted to:
- millions by television
Today in 2021 the free speech of almost any individual can be transmitted to:
- hundreds of millions instantly through the Internet
Point is that today's technology gives the free speaker a megaphone a million times larger and more powerful that was ever envisioned by the founders, when they considered the wording of the First Amendment.
This is brand new territory, never before encountered in the history of the human race - it remains to be seen how we manage the most powerful communication technology ever created. It could destroy us or it could elevate us. We are going to find out, one way or the other.
Last edited by GearHeadDave; 02-11-2021 at 10:44 AM..
Too bad. That’s the cost of a free society. I am not interested in your idle predictions and protests. All speech should be free and unfettered.
If an actual crime is being planned and that can be proven, there are conspiracy laws to deal with that.
But ALL opinions are on the table including those that one person or another might view as offensive.
And we are trying to make a distinction that you cannot or will not see. There is a distinction between being offensive and inciting violence. Being offensive is protected. Inciting others to violence is not. Whether speech crosses that line or not depends heavily on the context in which it is used, the way the words are spoken, and the audience it is intended for.
One example that I think illustrates this well is let us assume a man is standing in the town square telling a mob that they need to break down the doors of the county jail and lynch a criminal who is being held there. A local ordinance forbids action that "disturbs the peace". Can this man be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace? Yes, because inciting violence in that situation is not protected speech under the First Amendment. His speech crossed the line when he advocated imminent violent action against another.
If one chooses to castigate Twitter and its owners for exercising their property rights in regard to the use of their social media platform, one must also castigate Rupert Murdoch for exercising his property rights in regard to the use of his news media platform.
Whether one chooses to remove from one's own property that which one deems to be undesirable (as does Twitter), or whether one chooses to inundate one's property with what one deems to be desirable (as does Murdoch), it amounts to pretty much the same personal choice that others may view as being suppressive. However, these are two sides of the same free enterprise coin and should not be the purview of government.
At some point a company that serves the public becomes so large that it can no longer be considered private, telephone company's back before the internet would never be allowed to disconnect customers for there political views, same with electronic company's, gas company, etc.
Some became so large they were forced to breakup, read up on bell telephone.
Twitter and Youtube are private property and they should be able to censor anything they want for any or no reason.
Freedom of speech only applies to protection from the State. The State cannot censor. But private companies can. That’s correct in a free society.
If you can prove actual and specific acts of conspiracy to commit crimes, we have laws for that already on the books.
But freedom of expression and speech should be as close to absolute as possible. The usual hackneyed “fire in a theater” cases are usually trotted out, but they are irrelevant to the meaning and spirit of free speech: being allowed to express your views, no matter how offensive or contrarian to conventional sensibility. THAT is what needs protection from the tyranny of the majority, or today, the minority.
What if the person advocating violence uses a government network or computer to do it? Should the government not be able to intervene?
Too bad. That’s the cost of a free society. I am not interested in your idle predictions and protests. All speech should be free and unfettered.
If an actual crime is being planned and that can be proven, there are conspiracy laws to deal with that.
But ALL opinions are on the table including those that one person or another might view as offensive.
I am a Libertarian. I see your point and when you look at countries in Europe that ban all sorts of speech that goes way over the top. I don't think there should be hate crimes. A crime is a crime. If someone harms someone else they need to pay the price for that.
But as others have listed. There are nine categories where free speech is not protected. I can see the point of each except obscenity. Regarding perjury. Should people have the freedom to go to court and lie under oath? Should people be allowed to target a business and defame them without evidence like in the case of Dominion and not be held responsible?
Should someone not be held to telling the truth when under oath?
Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 02-11-2021 at 11:03 AM..
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.
