Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
LastLast
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    So you just straight-up don't understand what "protected classes" are, then.

    Here's a tip. "Black" isn't a protected class. "Race" is a protected class. It protects white employees just as much as it protects black employees.
    Obviously I'm fine with that. The fact remains that if we had a nickel for every time we've heard "black people can't be racist" spouted by a snowflake, we'd both be rich men. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion, let's assume a sensible definition of discrimination.

    The question still stands. Do we think it's problematic if Facebook, a de-facto monopoly in the social media space, refuses to platform BLM?

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Typrax View Post
    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.
    Are you sure? I thought only Trumps views were ok and everything eles is just fake?
    It's not so far fetched to think that he'll start taking away any news and information that does not fit his vews.

    Good luck america... You'll need it.

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    2 Live Crew was arrested for obscenity.

    Only the government can arrest us.
    hurr durr. Bother to follow the rest of the fucking case?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by niil945 View Post
    #Alternative Facts
    #i have no intelligent rebuttal so i use retarded hashtags

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Uvwaex View Post
    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?
    Telling someone their speech is stupid over and over and over without giving them a proper rebuttal, or trying to persuade them over to your way of thinking is pointless. Legal, but pointless, and makes you look like a tantrum-throwing toddler. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. To your point? yes both actions are protected, we can agree on that for sure.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    I would never say that it is more important than the right to security of the person.
    Contrary to what liberals like to claim, there is nothing covered by freed speech that ever threatens the security or safety of anyone. Inciting others to violence is already a crime. What's not a crime, what's not a threat is opinions people just don't like, even if some people find them vulgar or offensive. Accusing words of being violent acts, or saying words threaten someone's safety is just an excuse for people to commit actual acts of violence.

  5. #225
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    They are an institution suppressing the public communications of their political opponents because they believe it to be politically incorrect, harmful, objectionable, etc. Read the definition of censorship I posted above.
    Perhaps you should read the definition you posted. Denying someone a platform in which to express themselves is not censorship as they're still free to express themselves on other platforms. The "suppression" part of the definition you've quoted refers specifically to the "expression" itself being prevented. Not being able to use a specific platform for that expression is neither "suppression" nor "censorship". Again, the right to free expression does not entitle you to a platform in which to express yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    Please explain to me how this is different than a gay cake. I think that if you advertise that you're going to bake a cake for a given price, you should bake a cake for anybody who offers you that price. If you are happy to provide a platform for free (really advertising revenue and analytics data), then you should do that for anybody. To deny some people and not others because you dislike them is discrimination. Pretty simple.
    Sure, but in everything there are limitations. If you go into a bakery and expect them to make that same cake with a long rant about how you hate <insert racial slur>, then no, they don't have to comply. Refusal to be the platform for your opinion is neither censorship nor discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    The question still stands. Do we think it's problematic if Facebook, a de-facto monopoly in the social media space, refuses to platform BLM?
    Nope. It's their business, their platform, their servers.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinpachi View Post
    #i have no intelligent rebuttal so i use retarded hashtags
    That case was about obscenity and had absolutely nothing to do with free speech in the context of which we're speaking about here. The government claimed their (2 Live Crew) music violated public obscenity laws based on recordings by undercover cops who were at the venue. That was a relatively clearcut case of the government trying to censor people due to the words used in lyrics. That is protected by the first amendment and it is why they won the case. We, on the other hand, aren't actually talking about free speech. We're talking about the social repercussions of people speaking where the government isn't trying to stop people, other entities whether they be businesses like Twitter shutting off accounts or people protesting a Milo speaking event are well within their rights to show people the door.

    You said "false" to my point about free speech only protecting people from censorship by the government and cited a case which demonstrates the exact thing I stated, that it protects you from the government. Hurr durr! And you expect an intelligent response to your idiotic drivel? Please.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinpachi View Post
    hurr durr. Bother to follow the rest of the fucking case?
    Don't need to. Your interpretation was wrong the second they were arrested.

    Hurr durr all you want.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  8. #228
    People these days seem to scream "MUH FREE SPEECH" as soon as something they agree with, even when it goes against reality, is stomped out or ignored.

    Free speech shouldn't grant you the right to spread lies and false news.

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    Perhaps you should read the definition you posted. Denying someone a platform in which to express themselves is not censorship as they're still free to express themselves on other platforms. The "suppression" part of the definition you've quoted refers specifically to the "expression" itself being prevented. Not being able to use a specific platform for that expression is neither "suppression" nor "censorship". Again, the right to free expression does not entitle you to a platform in which to express yourself.
    Facebook is where political discourse in America takes place in 2016. That is the reality. Pretending that one man controlling the substance of that discourse because it doesn't violate the letter of the 1st amendment isn't an issue is to be more than a little daft.

    The oldest and most foundational part of American telecom law is that Bell (or any service provider)wasn't allowed to restrict certain singals (content) from passing on the lines. They were supposed to act as if THEY DID NOT KNOW what passed through their network. The reason being was that to know such things (an drestrict such things) would be to give Bell almost unimaginable power.

    Facebook serves the same purpose (and holds even more power) in the modern era. Let's say Zuckerberg was to run for POTUS as some have speculated. Is it okay for him to manipulate the reporting and feeds on Facebook to serve his ends? It's "his" platform after-all. It's a problem, whether you want to admit it or not. Social networks should be held to the same standards telecoms were. Hell, in some parts of the world, Facebook IS the internet.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rorcanna View Post
    People these days seem to scream "MUH FREE SPEECH" as soon as something they agree with, even when it goes against reality, is stomped out or ignored.

    Free speech shouldn't grant you the right to spread lies and false news.
    I agree. CNN should be taken off the air.

    "It's illegal to read the wikileaks!"

  10. #230
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post


    I agree. CNN should be taken off the air.

    "It's illegal to read the wikileaks!"
    Sounds like a way for Trumpy to get even closer to the dictorship he seems to want.
    Just ban all news stations that dont tow the line.

  11. #231
    I am Murloc! zephid's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Typrax View Post
    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.
    The first amendment only guarantees that the congress won't make a law that restricts free speech, with some exceptions. The first amendment does not protect you individuals or organisations.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrak View Post
    Sounds like a way for Trumpy to get even closer to the dictorship he seems to want.
    Just ban all news stations that dont tow the line.
    It follows from what the person I quoted said.

    At the end of the day Trump wouldn't be a threat at all if the MSM hadn't lit their credibility on fire with statements like the one in my quote. Walter Cronkite could have blown Trump the fuck out in one evening if he so chose.

    Nobody has the same gravitas Cronkite did today. Hell, the only guy that's even close (in terms of their facts being always correct) is Assange.

    My problem is it doesn't seem that there's any objective reason to trust one side over the other. It's all a matter of taste now.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    You would be utterly wrong. Someone isn't violating my freedom of speech if they punch me after I call their mother fat.
    Literally punching some one in order to interrupt their speech in progress?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Anevers View Post
    It doesn't matter what you think!
    So bored of liberals. Either way, punching someone for what they say, unless they say "I AM GOING TO ATTACK YOU RIGHT NOW" is not okay.

    Everyone that does it are cowards and they take a cheap shot because that's the only one they could get.

  14. #234
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    Facebook is where political discourse in America takes place in 2016.
    Um, no it's not. Sure, there's the occasional meme post, etc, but it is by no means a major player in political discourse. In fact, most people block users who post about politics. I know I do, the rare occasion I actually load the outdated garbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    Pretending that one man controlling the substance of that discourse because it doesn't violate the letter of the 1st amendment isn't an issue is to be more than a little daft.
    Attributing any value whatsoever to the opinions of random Facebook dwellers is daft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    The oldest and most foundational part of American telecom law is that Bell (or any service provider)wasn't allowed to restrict certain singals (content) from passing on the lines. They were supposed to act as if THEY DID NOT KNOW what passed through their network. The reason being was that to know such things (an drestrict such things) would be to give Bell almost unimaginable power.
    And if your ISP starts filtering your content, then you can complain. Social media sites have no affiliation with your ISP and no obligation to hold any sort of standards in regards to platforms of expression. They are private sites run by private companies on private servers. They don't have to offer anyone anything. Merely using their site is an agreement to their terms of use and therein, subjects any content you submit to their rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    Facebook serves the same purpose (and holds even more power) in the modern era. Let's say Zuckerberg was to run for POTUS as some have speculated. Is it okay for him to manipulate the reporting and feeds on Facebook to serve his ends? It's "his" platform after-all. It's a problem, whether you want to admit it or not.
    I fail to see how this is relevant to, well, anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    Social networks should be held to the same standards telecoms were.
    No, they shouldn't. They are not communications services. They are privately-operated web sites that allow people to "host" content within the parameters provided. This is like claiming that a department store should be held to the same standards as a telecom because they have a phone line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    Hell, in some parts of the world, Facebook IS the internet.
    Most users who participate in political discourse have multiple social media accounts and there's more than two dozen popular social media services, none of which have any obligation to offer anything other than what they decide to offer. The access limitations of a given group of users is utterly irrelevant.
    Last edited by Mistame; 2017-02-19 at 01:55 AM.

  15. #235
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    It follows from what the person I quoted said.

    At the end of the day Trump wouldn't be a threat at all if the MSM hadn't lit their credibility on fire with statements like the one in my quote. Walter Cronkite could have blown Trump the fuck out in one evening if he so chose.
    He is the president of the US, he still would be.

    Nobody has the same gravitas Cronkite did today. Hell, the only guy that's even close (in terms of their facts being always correct) is Assange.
    Assange does not deserve blind trust.
    He is also clearly biased, even going as far as posting a conspiracy theory cartoon from Ben Garrison.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by zephid View Post
    The first amendment only guarantees that the congress won't make a law that restricts free speech, with some exceptions. The first amendment does not protect you individuals or organisations.
    You're right. The second amendment does that.

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinpachi View Post
    You're right. The second amendment does that.
    Hey look, another amendment that you don't understand! Shocker.

  18. #238
    I didn't realize free speech and popular opinion were mutually exclusive? Having an opinion and being able to voice it is an aspect of free speech, is it not?

  19. #239
    The Unstoppable Force May90's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere special
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    They are an institution suppressing the public communications of their political opponents because they believe it to be politically incorrect, harmful, objectionable, etc. Read the definition of censorship I posted above.

    Please explain to me how this is different than a gay cake. I think that if you advertise that you're going to bake a cake for a given price, you should bake a cake for anybody who offers you that price. If you are happy to provide a platform for free (really advertising revenue and analytics data), then you should do that for anybody. To deny some people and not others because you dislike them is discrimination. Pretty simple.
    Discrimination isn't always a bad thing. When I don't let a random person from the street into my apartment, I discriminate against random people from the street, and there is nothing wrong with it, because it is my private space, my private property, and I set my own rules here. Same way, a private institution not giving a platform for discussion for certain groups of people reasonably discriminates against them, when it aligns with the purpose of that platform. A math conference is supposed to only provide a platform for mathematicians or people somehow related to math.

    Not letting black people speak, or not letting gays speak is pretty silly, because it is based on the wrong premise that one's skin color or one's sexual orientation somehow affect what they have to say - but, again, it is perfectly within a private company's right.

    You, like many other people, do not understand the concept of free speech. Free speech =/= ability to say anything anywhere any time. Free speech is protection from governmental persecution based on you expressing your beliefs and opinions. The government cannot persecute you because you don't like the political system in the US, for example, or because you worship Hitler publicly, or because you are Muslim, or because you believe in the flat Earth. It doesn't mean anyone owes you a platform on which you can express your beliefs: you can express them in public space, but whatever goes in a private space is none of the government's business, and none of yours either.
    Quote Originally Posted by King Candy View Post
    I can't explain it because I'm an idiot, and I have to live with that post for the rest of my life. Better to just smile and back away slowly. Ignore it so that it can go away.
    Thanks for the avatar goes to Carbot Animations and Sy.

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellrod View Post
    I didn't realize free speech and popular opinion were mutually exclusive? Having an opinion and being able to voice it is an aspect of free speech, is it not?
    Having an opinion and being able to voice it without fear of government retribution is an aspect of free speech . Your boss can still fire you, your girlfriend can still dump you, and a privately owned forum can still ban you.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2017-02-19 at 09:44 AM.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •