Free speech takes precedence over individual or group opinions

[Zecora]

Wait, what?

So they stopped it? Grand, and cause for some very cautious hope. Has the gag order and the content on the white house pages been rectified too? If not, I stand by my initial assertion: just burn it.

[Spectral]

So they stopped it? Grand, and cause for some very cautious hope. Has the gag order and the content on the white house pages been rectified too? If not, I stand by my initial assertion: just burn it.

No, your notion of complete scrubbing of climate pages just flatly didn't happen. The NASA page I linked has been up the entire time and as near as I can tell hasn't changed.

It's also pretty obvious that an administration determining what messages its departments issue isn't remotely a violation of freedom of speech either in spirit or in letter of the law.

Having a histrionic reaction to the archiving of the previous administration's web pages is pretty silly.

[DSRilk]

Again, Pizzagate was literally fabricated by the alt right media. Pissgate was not fabricated by the MSM. Acting as if these two things are the same or equally egregious is ridiculous.

Isaac Newton, someone who is more well respected and well known than Christopher Steele, said that the philosopher's stone was real and that it could grant immortality. Even brilliant people make stupid assertions. Taking something any single person says with no corroborating data and reporting on it is bad journalism. It's that simple. Pizzagate was literally fabricated. Absolutely. We have NO proof that "piss gate" wasn't also fabricated. A single unverifiable source, no matter how prestigious, is not good journalism. The fact that Steele was a smarter or better person than the idiot making up pizza gate in no way makes using his word alone a good idea. Just like Newton, and many other great people, sometimes they just have insights that are incorrect. If you don't believe that any single source unverifiable story is just as bad as another, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

No, your notion of complete scrubbing of climate pages just flatly didn't happen. The NASA page I linked has been up the entire time and as near as I can tell hasn't changed.

It's also pretty obvious that an administration determining what messages its departments issue isn't remotely a violation of freedom of speech either in spirit or in letter of the law.

Having a histrionic reaction to the archiving of the previous administration's web pages is pretty silly.

Okay, let's be real though... it was not an act of "archiving." It, like many administrations did before him, was an effort to control messaging. No, it wasn't wide spread. No, it isn't still going on. No, he wasn't the first to do something like this. And no, I still don't think it is ever a good idea for politicians to control what scientists are reporting. Let's not overreact, but let's also not whitewash what politicians keep trying to do.

[Zecora]

No, your notion of complete scrubbing of climate pages just flatly didn't happen. The NASA page I linked has been up the entire time and as near as I can tell hasn't changed.

It's also pretty obvious that an administration determining what messages its departments issue isn't remotely a violation of freedom of speech either in spirit or in letter of the law.

Having a histrionic reaction to the archiving of the previous administration's web pages is pretty silly.

Clearly they didn't get as far as NASA, but the White House pages about climate change went down, as did EPA pages with data on climate change, and the gag orders went out. And being told that you are not allowed to talk is pretty much the definition of a freedom of speech violation.

But I rather suspect freedom of speech only matters to you when it's on a subject that you support.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Is that hypocrisy I read in your thread?

Free speech is the fact that any speech, as long that it's not hate speech which is illegal by the way, may it comes from an individual or a group or society, are all given the same rights to express, regardless of what others think of it.

It is therefore also a right to criticize a free speech with a free speech. To say that people cannot speak against free speech is against free speech in itself. It's your right to disagree with them and tell them why they're wrong, however.

[Spectral]

Clearly they didn't get as far as NASA, but the White House pages about climate change went down, as did EPA pages with data on climate change, and the gag orders went out.

Seems like a motte-and-bailey situation - claim they removed everything, then back off to a pretty minor change and just elide over the part where you were way off base.

And being told that you are not allowed to talk is pretty much the definition of a freedom of speech violation.

No, your employer directing what you can say in your professional capacity is not at all a violation of free speech in principle or in law.

But I rather suspect freedom of speech only matters to you when it's on a subject that you support.

Unsurprisingly, your suspicion is ignorant and unfounded.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, let's be real though... it was not an act of "archiving." It, like many administrations did before him, was an effort to control messaging. No, it wasn't wide spread. No, it isn't still going on. No, he wasn't the first to do something like this. And no, I still don't think it is ever a good idea for politicians to control what scientists are reporting. Let's not overreact, but let's also not whitewash what politicians keep trying to do.

It quite literally was archiving. Here, check out the writeup from Obama's administration back on October 31, prior to the election, now found on the archived page:

Similar to the Clinton and Bush White House websites, President Obama’s WhiteHouse.gov will be preserved on the web and frozen after January 20th and made available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. The incoming White House will receive the WhiteHouse.gov domain and all content that has been posted to WhiteHouse.gov during the Obama administration will be archived with NARA.

I can't speak with certainty to whether there were significant changes on the EPA pages, but the WhiteHouse.gov changes were entirely about a policy that had already been settled on by the previous administration prior to the election. With regard to the EPA page, I've seen some blog posts speculating about it, but it's pretty much live here and looks about the same to me as always.

[Bodakane]

Isaac Newton, someone who is more well respected and well known than Christopher Steele, said that the philosopher's stone was real and that it could grant immortality. Even brilliant people make stupid assertions. Taking something any single person says with no corroborating data and reporting on it is bad journalism. It's that simple. Pizzagate was literally fabricated. Absolutely. We have NO proof that "piss gate" wasn't also fabricated. A single unverifiable source, no matter how prestigious, is not good journalism. The fact that Steele was a smarter or better person than the idiot making up pizza gate in no way makes using his word alone a good idea. Just like Newton, and many other great people, sometimes they just have insights that are incorrect. If you don't believe that any single source unverifiable story is just as bad as another, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The MSM didn't report that Trump likes pee. The story they put out was a credible source released a dossier claiming a number of things. Thye didn't pass any of it off as truth or not.They said this dossier is a story. They do not need to verify anything in the dossier to run the story there's a dossier.

Pizzagate, OTOH, completly made up. There is noting that leads Hillary to child sex rings at all. There is however, plenty of evidence Trump has Russian ties.

[Fencers]

In the US the 1st Amendment mostly protects one from the government. Platforms (such as Facebook, a newspaper or television program) not owned by government and private individuals have no obligation to provide or listen to one's freedom of expression.

I am not aware of the US government applying restrictions of censoring speech by it's citizens outside of the parameters of the US Supreme Court in recent years.

What actual trend is the OP referring to; I can find no gross evidence or example of actual violation of the 1st Amendment in the last year even.

I suspect the OP claim is a combination of ignorance and/or hyperbole.

[Zecora]

Seems like a motte-and-bailey situation - claim they removed everything, then back off to a pretty minor change and just elide over the part where you were way off base.

Last I heard, that was the way it headed. Like I said, it's a small dollop of hope that it didn't end up that way. Ordering science you don't like removed though, is NOT a "minor change".

No, your employer directing what you can say in your professional capacity is not at all a violation of free speech in principle or in law.

Right, telling the people who study climate change that they can't say that the climate is changing isn't violating their free speech. Classic Spectral Logic.

Unsurprisingly, your suspicion is ignorant and unfounded.

Right back at'cha sonny.

[DSRilk]

The MSM didn't report that Trump likes pee. The story they put out was a credible source released a dossier claiming a number of things. Thye didn't pass any of it off as truth or not.They said this dossier is a story. They do not need to verify anything in the dossier to run the story there's a dossier.

Pizzagate, OTOH, completly made up. There is noting that leads Hillary to child sex rings at all. There is however, plenty of evidence Trump has Russian ties.

Fair enough, there is a difference in regard to one is true, the other is not. Without corroborating evidence, however, I don't see either as valid news.

[Bodakane]

Fair enough, there is a difference in regard to one is true, the other is not. Without corroborating evidence, however, I don't see either as valid news.

They didn't say the story was Trump like piss parties. So its not incumbent upon them to prove if Trump likes piss parties.

They said the story was there's this dossier. All they had to to do was get corroboration of the dossier's existence and who wrote it. Which they did. They made no claims about what was true or not in the dossier.

[Spectral]

Last I heard, that was the way it headed. Like I said, it's a small dollop of hope that it didn't end up that way. Ordering science you don't like removed though, is NOT a "minor change".



Right, telling the people who study climate change that they can't say that the climate is changing isn't violating their free speech. Classic Spectral Logic.



Right back at'cha sonny.

You're asserting that there was a denial of free speech because they ordered science removed, yet I just linked to the exact sites that you stated earlier were removed. This, "I'm hearing that..." routine is downright Trumpian.

You really don't see how that seems histrionic and silly to me?

[Uvwaex]

False. Although that's the original intent, the supreme courts have ruled time and time again that unpopular speech is protected in general. That's why rappers and musicians are allowed to use explicit lyrics on their albums. You must not be old enough to remember the controversy that 2 live crew created when they took this very issue to the U.S. Supreme court and WON. It's NOT just "by the government", its censorship, PERIOD, with the only caveat being that it is in public. Private businesses are free to restrict content in their business/on their websites

So I don't have the free speech to say your speech is stupid, and to say it over and over and over again to the point you don't want to say it? Sounds like we have a lot of edgelords that have to stop trolling tumblr.

My only point being that, the same speech, is popular and unpopular for different groups. So, both actions would be protected, no?

[Xeones]

In the US the 1st Amendment mostly protects one from the government. Platforms (such as Facebook, a newspaper or television program) not owned by government and private individuals have no obligation to provide or listen to one's freedom of expression.

I am not aware of the US government applying restrictions of censoring speech by it's citizens outside of the parameters of the US Supreme Court in recent years.

What actual trend is the OP referring to; I can find no gross evidence or example of actual violation of the 1st Amendment in the last year even.

I suspect the OP claim is a combination of ignorance and/or hyperbole.

There is some movement coming from the right that protests aren't speech and they shouldn't be able to disagree with nazis.

[xero5141]

Per the title, I'd like to discuss the growing trend in America to try and censor views that some people find disagreeable. Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment as any speech that does not threaten or guarantee physical harm against someone. Let's discuss how important this right is to having a free society.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what it means. A popular saying is that you can't scream fire in a crowded theater.

And when you say physical harm. Are you saying that slander is protected? How about racism? Can I sit on this forum and sling racist insults? Probably not. Free speech first and foremost applies to the peoples' interactions with the government such as being able to speak out against our current leadership without fear that you're going to be murdered by an anti-aircraft gun on an airfield DPRK style. Where does your freedom of speech end?

I think that ALL personal rights are things that have to be treated with great care. The second your freedoms are allowed to hinder someone else's we are giving up rights. Until we stop the coddling and babying that is taking over at present, everyone's rights in this country are limited. If we are going to go around throwing out phrases like "freedom of speech" we'd damn well better live up to it.

Take this forum for example, if I call you some kind of a flaming racist insult, I'll probably get infracted, maybe banned. If I go to Walmart and do the same, they can remove me the same way I could be removed from ANY private property. So where is freedom of speech protected? Only on public property? On government land? I bet if I go to the courthouse down the street and start yelling "death to X group of people" I'd be removed, maybe even charged with a hate crime. I don't think anyone ACTUALLY knows where freedom of speech is supposed to end, we all just pretend like we do but NO ONE is ready to let it go all the way.

TL;DR don't talk about it, be about it.

[Zecora]

You're asserting that there was a denial of free speech because they ordered science removed, yet I just linked to the exact sites that you stated earlier were removed. This, "I'm hearing that..." routine is downright Trumpian.

You really don't see how that seems histrionic and silly to me?

No, you linked to one site which is currently up, which I haven't denied. But as others have told you as well, both EPA and WH sites were ordered edited, something you refuse to acknowledge. It's getting a bit like listening to a broken and looping record at this time.

Unless you have something new to add, I don't think I'll bother with you anymore.

[Spectral]

No, you linked to one site which is currently up, which I haven't denied. But as others have told you as well, both EPA and WH sites were ordered edited, something you refuse to acknowledge. It's getting a bit like listening to a broken and looping record at this time.

Unless you have something new to add, I don't think I'll bother with you anymore.

I linked to the EPA site, which seems fine.

I linked to the archived WH site with a description from Obama's staffers explaining the archiving process; this was already decided and written up in back in October.

So, yeah, I addressed both of those claims. Just as a reminder of where this started though:

You've got a Prez who has seen to that all mentions of climate change is removed from government sites.

Maybe if you didn't go around reciting whatever misinformation you heard somewhere that jibes with what you believed in the first place, we wouldn't have to have these sorts of silly exchanges.

[Zecora]

-snip-

So that's a "no" then.

[Spectral]

Pretty dishonest man. It's actually a lot more respectable to say, "my bad, I was misinformed" than to be snarky when your misinformation gets pointed out.

[Zecora]

Pretty dishonest man. It's actually a lot more respectable to say, "my bad, I was misinformed" than to be snarky when your misinformation gets pointed out.

I've already said that it's good that it went no further, Mr."it's just an archival". Now where is your "my bad, I was misinformed"?

Not forthcoming?

I've no more interest in you then.