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.
Indeed, the internet is freer than radio. On the internet, the government can't forbid it. On the radio, you must first get a license from the FCC, which is part of the government!
Actually, this is false. Free speech is a concept. The concept is routed in the idea that people be allowed to express themselves without reprisal. That's not to say that there are no consequences to speech, but as a concept, free speech is meant to allow for the free flow of ideas in a free society. It's true that "free speech" is also a Constitutional right. In that regard, it's true that the government is prohibited from censorship. However, that doesn't mean that every non-governmental entity should censor simply because it can. Also, there are court cases on state levels that have required corporations to allow a certain amount of free speech on their property (shopping malls are one example). Free speech is an American ideal. Censorship is un-American, whether it's by a government or corporation. Obviously, free speech needs to be controlled by certain corporations. No talking in a theater, for example. However, when a social media platform designed as an outlet for speech censors people based on the content of their speech, that's a downright affront to the very concept of a free society.
Mods routinely boot people off City Data’s forums if they think TOS have been violated, which typically involve issues of speech.
It’s astonishing how many people are so ignorant and somehow think Twitter censors free speech. First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations. When you sign up for a social media site you agree to their Terms of Service. If you violate their terms of service they can ban or suspend your account. It’s not the same as censoring free speech. It’s hilarious that people think corporations can violate your free speech rights.They literally can’t. I thought Elon was smarter than that? Even he doesn’t know what free speech is. Twitter is a corporation, not a government entity.
Soooo.....
I suppose the government overstepped its bounds when they made businesses, which are private like Twitter, integrate against their will.
And those bars. They're also privately owned businesses. So if the owner wants it break out those ashtrays.
Or does private business not being under the Constitution only work in one direction?
Ironically enough just like Twitter and the MSM do.
Looks to me like many of want to be able to shoot off our mouths anytime, to anybody anywhere.
But not be held responsible for our words.
No, what moderates and conservatives want is an even playing field. They want the rules applied equally. There is no disputing they have have not been in the past. The left can spew disinformation all day long, dox people and still be on the platform. Conservatives even just retweet something a democrat has actually said, and they are banned. That’s not shooting your mouth off. Again, you, someone on the left, spewing more disinformation. I support your right to do it. Do you support mine?
It’s astonishing how many people are so ignorant and somehow think Twitter censors free speech. First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations. When you sign up for a social media site you agree to their Terms of Service. If you violate their terms of service they can ban or suspend your account. It’s not the same as censoring free speech. It’s hilarious that people think corporations can violate your free speech rights. They literally can’t. I thought Elon was smarter than that? Even he doesn’t know what free speech is. Twitter is a corporation, not a government entity.
The First Amendment applied to GOVERNMENT, because the Founders could not a imagine a future where CORPORATIONS limited FREE SPEECH.
The evil BIG TECH companies have it both ways. They claim they are platforms NOT responsible for content and then in the past few years, HAVE been censoring content.
Chose one or the other.
Congress needs to apply copyright laws to BIG TECH. I am tired of Google, MicroSoft, etc. stealing my photo's and published articles under the rationale that they are NOT responsible for content posted on their sites.
I'd have to disagree with hate speech and disinformation being free speech. Anything that is harmful is not free speech. You can't go into a crowded building and yell fire, cause a panic and injure someone without ramifications. That is not free speech.
Every platform has rules and will censor what they don't want on their platform. You can't express an honest opinion here if the moderators don't like what you're saying. There's an agenda with every social media platform and those rules are designed around that agenda. If you don't like it, you can leave. That's just the way it is. There's really no such thing as free speech on a social platform. It would degrade into the wild west. Hate speech is not free speech. That ugliness does not belong in society. It belongs behind closed doors.
What Musk does with Twitter remains to be seen. I don't belong to it. I don't care about it. He could easily run it into the ground too.
Never forget that Facebook was fined 5 billion for failing to comply with rules set by the FTC. Fair business practices, truth in advertising still apply to social media.
I think Congress is looking closer at regulating social media, but some states like California have a jump start on regulations. Most of that is about data collection. Social media companies can be sued as well.
Lets say you allow your platform to foment an insurrection that gets someone hurt or worse, killed. Who gets sued? Everyone involved. That is not free speech. That is insidious disregard for someone elses well being.
That’s a slippery slope. So you say if anything is harmful it is not free speech. In today’s environment harmful speech can include anything someone finds offensive and what is considered offensive has become so broad as to limit free speech entirely. Truth can be harmful to people holding public office or to a political party or a corporation. The issue is who defines what is truth? When the story first broke about the Hunter Biden laptop, social media and most news organizations declared it a false story without investigating for themselves or they wanted it to be a false story because it could negatively impact the Biden campaign for the presidential election. Now, two years later, all those agencies reluctantly acknowledge the story was true but still hardly give it any coverage at all hoping it’ll go away when it may result in a presidential impeachment as well as criminal trial of several individuals.
This statement is very much correct in the sense of how free speech is defined from a strictly legal standpoint .
The issue of whether or not it meshes with justice and morality is an entirely different one however , an issue that is the actual key question relating to vast differences of opinion regarding this subject .
Yeah, so we have lefties, who basically hate free speech, going with the narrowest possible view of what it means. Defining freedom of expression only in terms of what government can do to limit it leaves the door open for them to use a variety of other means to suppress it.
You think hate speech and disinformation is free speech?
Yes, given the way the dominant culture now uses these terms to describe almost any kind speech it doesn't like, these categories of expression must be defended. The "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" standard for unacceptable speech does not apply to "hate speech" as it is now commonly defined.
It’s astonishing how many people are so ignorant and somehow think Twitter censors free speech. First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations. When you sign up for a social media site you agree to their Terms of Service. If you violate their terms of service they can ban or suspend your account. It’s not the same as censoring free speech. It’s hilarious that people think corporations can violate your free speech rights. They literally can’t. I thought Elon was smarter than that? Even he doesn’t know what free speech is. Twitter is a corporation, not a government entity.
Your speech is free as long as you only say things that are authorized and approved of by the government and their corporate media allies
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.
