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.
Many people think that the U.S. has not been this divided since the Civil War era, and I agree, but for the first time that I know about, some people are saying -- or seem to be saying -- that some opinions should not be allowed to be expressed.
So let's keep it simple.
Do you think that some opinions that do not advocate violence should be prohibited? And if you do, what kind of opinions, and why? And please indicate whether how you identify yourself, politically speaking.
I will start by saying that I am a conservative (but not a Trump supporter) and I think that ALL opinions that do not advocate violence or breaking the law should be permitted, so long as those opinions are not presented as FACT. Period.
I’m with you. I’m almost a free speech absolutist, but for things like incitement to violence or doxxing. I’d rather even the more shady opinions see the light of day.
For one, if we start regulating speech, then who makes the rules? Those rules could flip on to you in an instant.
For another, I thought we’d have learned by now that a prohibitionist approach to things merely pushes it underground, it doesn’t eliminate the desired behaviors or thoughts. Once underground, it just becomes more dangerous - folks already consider themselves “beneath” the law, and might be emboldened to act more violently because of that disregard of the law. Further, it makes it harder for law enforcement to actually track legitimately bad actors.
Last but not least, free speech is free speech. Being offended isn’t a reason free speech can be abridged. There’s talk of speech being violence, but most of it is merely being offended and trying to bring in, over and over again, one of the only ways speech can and should be abridged. It’s pretty clear when someone is inciting violence vs. when someone is an ignorant ass or just trying to troll and offend people to gin up some cloud of words from a bunch of other stupid people. Don’t dare bring up Trump and the Capitol riot here - that’s already discussed on other threads, and falls into a grey area I’m not trying to address.
Defamation needs to be regulated in some way, and in my opinion, there need to be some sort of "antitrust" type laws that prohibit one company or organization from dominating the control of discourse (e.g. Google or Twitter).
I will start by saying that I am a conservative (but not a Trump supporter) and I think that ALL opinions that do not advocate violence or breaking the law should be permitted, so long as those opinions are not presented as FACT. Period.
Permitted by whom? Again, Constitutional freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone can say anything, anywhere, without consequences. City Data can ban users for posting language that violates their terms of service. A customer can be asked to leave a private business for speaking in a way that makes other customers uncomfortable. That is not protected by the Constitution. If we didn't have Constitutional freedom of speech Marjorie Taylor Greene could be jailed, not just slapped on the wrist for what she's said about her Congressional colleagues.
Permitted by whom? Again, Constitutional freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone can say anything, anywhere, without consequences. City Data can ban users for posting language that violates their terms of service. A customer can be asked to leave a private business for speaking in a way that makes other customers uncomfortable. That is not protected by the Constitution. If we didn't have Constitutional freedom of speech Marjorie Taylor Greene could be jailed, not just slapped on the wrist for what she's said about her Congressional colleagues.
I wish I could rep you x 1,000,000 for what you wrote here. You've defined precisely what is meant by the difference between our Constitutionally protected right to free speech and the petulant complaints of those who confuse Constitutional rights with self-entitlement.
Many people seem to be of the opinion today that their words and actions should have no consequences. If you cuss out your employer and your employer chooses to fire you, that's a consequence of your imprudence -- not an abridgement of your free speech. If you violate the terms of service for any particular website or online forum and you subsequently find yourself banned from that platform, that's also a consequence of your imprudence -- not an abridgement of your free speech.
If, on the other hand, you choose to climb up on your soapbox and governmental authorities arrest you for it, that's an abridgement of your free speech.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 02-06-2021 at 10:08 AM..
I wish I could rep you x 1,000,000 for what you wrote here. You've defined precisely what is meant by the difference between our constitutionally protected right to free speech and the petulant complaints of those who confuse constitutional rights with self-entitlement.
Many people seem to be of the opinion today that their words and actions should have no consequences. If you cuss out your employer and your employer chooses to fire you, that's a consequence of your imprudence -- not an abridgement of your free speech. If you violate the terms of service for any particular website or online forum and you subsequently find yourself banned from that platform, that's also a consequence of your imprudence -- not an abridgement of your free speech.
If, on the other hand, you choose to set up your own soapbox (either real or metaphorical) in a public space and proclaim your thoughts to the world, and governmental authorities arrest you for it, that's an abridgement of your free speech.
Agreed, butit seems to me that many people seem to think that some people and groups (BOTH sides, btw) are promoting increased censorship, and many people are now afraid of possible consequences to posting non-majority opinions. I don't think that anyone is opposed to having statements removed that are presented as facts after they have been proven to be false and not believed by anyone who is sane and has an IQ of at least 100 and at least a high school diploma. (And, yes, I realize that leaves a lot of room for crazy stuff, but I don't think it should be up to some kind of government authority to determine what is "crazy stuff" and what isn't, as long as it is made clear that such statements are opinions. Again, the point is that I don't think that the GREAT majority of opinions should be censored, not matter how crazy or "hurtful". (On a personal note, I have had many hurtful things directed at me personally, but I never thought that anyone should be censored for saying such things, even if I did think they were "mean" or disagreed with them. I just took steps so that I could avoid them in the future as much as possible.)
I found the following article that I think succinctly, simply and intelligently explains the problem with limiting free speech that does not promote violence or is similar to the often used example of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-l...-idUSKBN1F825Z
(QUOTE, my italics) "Free speech isn’t a central part of democratic practice by accident. It springs from the view, developed increasingly powerfully over the past five centuries, that challenge to power from contrary opinion and the revelations that investigative research can put in the public domain are vital to a nation’s health. Attempts to suppress these, whether from overheated debates on campus or from overheated tweets from a presidential cellphone, must be opposed." [END QUOTE]
At a hearing Wednesday at the House Financial Services Committee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to “take down lies.”
“So you won’t take down lies or you will take down lies, it’s just a pretty simple yes or no?” Ocasio-Cortez demanded.
In reply, the Facebook CEO attempted to explain: “In a democracy, I believe that people should be able to see for themselves what politicians, who they may or may not vote for, are saying.”
And yet Twitter banned Donald Trump. (And, to repeat, I am NOT a Trump supporter!)
Last edited by katharsis; 02-06-2021 at 10:55 AM..
Permitted by whom? Again, Constitutional freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone can say anything, anywhere, without consequences. City Data can ban users for posting language that violates their terms of service. A customer can be asked to leave a private business for speaking in a way that makes other customers uncomfortable. That is not protected by the Constitution. If we didn't have Constitutional freedom of speech Marjorie Taylor Greene could be jailed, not just slapped on the wrist for what she's said about her Congressional colleagues.
Why should she even be slapped on the wrist? In her case it is government, specifically other members of Congress, trying to punish her for beliefs she held. Where do you draw the line? If it's OK to punish her, then it should also be OK to punish Maxine Waters for her calls to harass Trump Cabinet officials (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...rassed-n886311). Was that not a call for violence?
The shooting of Republicans practicing baseball was as much a result of anti Trump rhetoric as the Capitol Riot was of anti Biden rhetoric. Yet the response has been very different.
So, if you decide to limit free speech, who gets to decide? And who will guard against the deciders?
This is no longer a slippery slope, but a dive headfirst over the cliff, with people eager to do it. If you don't stand up for free speech now; instead make specious arguments over whether media can censor views they disagree with; or claim that speech is violence (but only when you disagree with it), then who will stand up for you when your turn comes?
And yet Twitter banned Donald Trump. (And, to repeat, I am NOT a Trump supporter!)
What does Twitter, Google, etc, have to do with free speech though? It seems to me that this isn't a free speech problem, it's an educational problem in that far too many people have no idea what their rights actually consist of. Is it okay to restrict what businesses and individuals are allowed to find acceptable simply because of the ignorance of others? Wouldn't you find that more limiting and reprehensible?
Agreed, butit seems to me that many people seem to think that some people and groups (BOTH sides, btw) are promoting increased censorship, and many people are now afraid of possible consequences to posting non-majority opinions. I don't think that anyone is opposed to having statements removed that are presented as facts after they have been proven to be false and not believed by anyone who is sane and has an IQ of at least 100 and at least a high school diploma.
I found the following article that I think succinctly, simply and intelligently explains the problem with limiting free speech that does not promote violence or is similar to the often used example of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-l...-idUSKBN1F825Z
(QUOTE, my italics) "Free speech isn’t a central part of democratic practice by accident. It springs from the view, developed increasingly powerfully over the past five centuries, that challenge to power from contrary opinion and the revelations that investigative research can put in the public domain are vital to a nation’s health. Attempts to suppress these, whether from overheated debates on campus or from overheated tweets from a presidential cellphone, must be opposed." [END QUOTE]
At a hearing Wednesday at the House Financial Services Committee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to “take down lies.”
“So you won’t take down lies or you will take down lies, it’s just a pretty simple yes or no?” Ocasio-Cortez demanded.
In reply, the Facebook CEO attempted to explain: “In a democracy, I believe that people should be able to see for themselves what politicians, who they may or may not vote for, are saying.”
And yet Twitter banned Donald Trump. (And, to repeat, I am NOT a Trump supporter!)
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.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 02-06-2021 at 10:51 AM..
What does Twitter, Google, etc, have to do with free speech though? It seems to me that this isn't a free speech problem, it's an educational problem in that far too many people have no idea what their rights actually consist of. Is it okay to restrict what businesses and individuals are allowed to find acceptable simply because of the ignorance of others? Wouldn't you find that more limiting and reprehensible?
Yes, this has been debated many times and the fact is that a private company can do whatever it likes; and I never had a problem with that until fairly recently when the November 2020 election was just a few months away.
It just seems to me, however, that if the media ever gets to the point that it only presents "one side", that censorship will be the norm -- and how can people have informed opinions if they are not educated in a non-biased way? In my opinion, that is already starting to be the case when the primary research tool -- Google -- already makes it more difficult to find articles supporting the conservative view than it does the liberal view. I don't know if it is still that way, but in my recent experience, no matter what I was trying to learn more abut regarding a current news story, the first links were always from CNN, the Washington Post, and/or The New York Times. (I don't know if it is still that way.)
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.
