Who are you to disallow anything?
And unfortunately, those who are most fallen for such hateful memes are the ones who are most projecting their failings onto others, one of the biggest being that “Freedom of Speech” means freedom from the consequences of that speech.
Until people like yourself understand that freedom of speech also means that I am free to tell you to shut the fuck up, people like yourself will continue to succumb to memes based on hate and intolerance.
OMG, self awareness? I’m so proud!
Sometimes you write as though you hope to be treated as a grown-up. Let’s have you demonstrate your mettle by posting a brief essay on Russia’s use of social media to subvert the 206 election. You needn’t over-exert yourself: an essay of 15 to 20 words will be fine.
I don’t care who or what publishes information.
Thanks for answering.
So you’re proud of FoxNews telling lies? Happy with foreign countries financing trolls to subvert American elections? Do you think the laws against Trump’s connivance with Russia should be repealed?
That’s kind of a key aspect of those critical thinking skills y’alls were talking about, you know ? In fact asking oneself “who wrote this, for whom, and for what reason” is, like, question A.1.a of the critical thought checklist. That comes before “is the information written here factually accurate”, even !
If it gets him what he wants, why should he care? The end justifies the means. Very Stalinist.
I don’t think any source of power, including the government, is intrinsically or consistently trustworthy. The nature of powerful institutions attracts those who desire power and those are dangerous people. I’d rather have flawed freedom of speech including horrible things like maga hats than having either the state or idiotic mobs of the emotionally stunted controlling what one can say or think.
Proud or happy about propaganda? No. But if you want to eliminate all sources of falsehood might as well eradicate all religions. $100k of Russian Facebook ads is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Exactly. People have to realize that almost everyone has an agenda. Why spend millions publishing if you aren’t getting something out of it. Facts are out there if people care to find them. People want to be entertained. Exploiting that is a feature of democracy.
Pro freedom of ideas is actually anti-Stalinist. You need to educate yourself.
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.‘
Joseph Stalin
The radicals of the far left and their useful idiot allies embody that quote not me or other proponents of individual liberty.
But that’s the thing. They don’t want you to be able to tell them to shut the fuck up.
Bottom line:
They have rights, YOU don’t. They can slag you 'til Doomsday, but you have to respect them. Fuck that.
Oh, and fuck their feelings.
Two recent news items. Facebook, presumably to get a few more dollars of ad revenue, continues to enhance the speech of haters and liars.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government seeks to criminalize the free speech of immigrant advocates.
-
Facebook fails to follow its own meager commitments to rein in white nationalist hate speech.
-
Free speech in immigrant advocacy may become illegal. “The [United States v. Sineneng-Smith] case could let the government prosecute people for routine legal work or even sympathetic tweets.”
From the NYT article cited in #30, “free speech is a bedrock value in this country. But it isn’t the only one. Like all values, it must be held in tension with others, such as equality, safety and robust democratic participation.”
That’s generally been the position of most democracies. In the US it simply ends at the first sentence. The question up for debate is whether this has done more harm than good.
The idea that preventing large angry groups from speaking what they feel will somehow make them less angry is ridiculous.
And given the experience of Trump, I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone on the left could possibly want the government to determine what can and can’t be said.
The left has always been a champion of free speech, until the last few years. And they made the point by being intentionally offensive and even hateful. The liberals of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s were as absolutist about free speech as the Republicans were about gun rights. It was the left’s best characteristic.
And at the time, some Republicans and moral majority types made exactly the same arguments for restricting certain speech: That it was divisive, it would lead to breakdowns in civil society, that it was being used to spread Russian lies… All of it.
I guess the big wheel keeps on turning, I for one do not welcome our new blacklisting, censoring overlords. And if I did support them, the last people I would put in charge of it would be the corrupt hacks in Washington.
Is slander protected by free speech?
If not, why not?
Yes, it is. But slander that causes harm is subject to tort law. As it should be. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. If you lie about someone and that lie does them harm, they can sue you.
But the government can’t stop you from libeling someone by preemptively restraining speech - nor should they.
When hate speech becomes personal and slanderous to an individual, the hater can be sued. That’s all the protection we need.
It seems you are unaware that much of that anger is as much the RESULT of hate speech as its cause.
What I’m having a hard time understanding is who in this thread has called for such government determination. It wasn’t me. Methinks you’re attacking strawmen again; but then that’s one of your fortes, isn’t it?
Some of us would like a boycott of Facebook until they stop abetting the Kremlin and neo-Nazis. Are you one of those nitwits who think a boycott of Facebook would be contrary to the 1st A?
Are you sure of the arrow of causation here? Is the anger the result of the rise of hate speech, or is the rise of hate speech the result of the rise in anger in the population?
The TITLE of your thread was about the danger of the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment is all about limiting the government’s ability to control speech. Organizing a boycott of facebook has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. I don’t think I’m the one who is confused here. Why did you start with criticism of the 1st amendment if you were only talking about non-government speech regulation?
So you’re unaware that there can be multiple cause-effect channels in complex systems?
Sure, haters produce hate speech. But much of the hatred is fomented by listening to haters. Or listening to liars in the Kremlin or White House serving their agenda by pretending to hate.
Asked and answered several times in the thread already. I don’t object to the 2nd A itself nor the 1st A; I object to the almost-psychopathic obsession some Americans have in their guns. And I object to the perversion of American discourse by malicious liars.
The problem with the 1st A isn’t the 1st A itself. Instead a problem is the way it’s been twisted (by 5-4 Scotus rulings) to encourage the domination of election campaigns by the lies of wealthy vested interests. Another problem is the pride some take that venues like Facebook and FoxNews are turned into megaphones for evil liars.
I’ve explained a key point over and over in this and other threads. Just for you, I’ll try once more using a larger font:
Identifying problems is the way forward. Solutions are developed AFTER problems are understood. Therefore I try to direct attention that America’s “free speech obsession” is a big problem, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO SOLUTION TO OFFER.
Do you disagree? You’re not concerned that millions of American voters are influenced by lies from the Kremlin and other malicious sources?
Again, nobody’s calling for repeal of the 1st A. I have no simple solution to offer. But if your ilk is happy with the idea of an election swung by Kremlin lies, then I must … disagree.
John Oliver did a show on “astro-turfing” with horrifying examples. As just one example, Citizens® for Fire Safety (an organization with just three “citizens” — namely the three largest manufacturers of carcinogenic flame retardants) paid a doctor $240,000 to lie repeatedly before legislatures. (“It wasn’t factual, it was anecdotal … I wasn’t under oath.”)
Again, I am NOT proposing a repeal of the First Amendment. I AM suggesting that the way “free speech” has evolved in America is not conducive to a humane society.
I’ve just sort of skimmed this thread, but as I read it, it’s kind of like —
septimus - “The pen is mightier than the sword.”
Everyone else - “How dare you!!”