Clarence Thomas Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[Tuor]

So, there are restrictions to free speech, but you are saying theya re too lazy to enforce them?

Again, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTION TO FREE SPEECH IN PORTUGAL, free speech is enforced by and protected by the constitution.

EDIT:
The topic is US discussing free speech, not Portugal, this is going off-topic.

[Machismo]

Again, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTION TO FREE SPEECH IN PORTUGAL, free speech is enforced by and protected by the constitution.

You specifically spoke about moral integrity. You even spoke about "being rude."

[Ripster42]

One thing i am sure, it isn't Portugal that is discussing limitations of free speech, i would love to know the motivations of that judge, and what sort of limitations he defends.

It's basically about whether or not the government should allow twitter to ban people on it's platform. He doesn't think they should be allowed to ban people on their platform for saying a bunch of shit the platform doesn't want to be disseminating. Unlike Portugal, no one would be facing jail time for defamation or blasphemy, just possibly fined for banning people from twitter. No other justice on the 9 member court (again, this court is 13 members in your country) agreed with him that twitter shouldn't be allowed to ban people because it restricts that person's right to free speech (as opposed to the platform's freedom of association).

You could have easily just read the OP though, right?

- - - Updated - - -

So, there are restrictions to free speech, but you are saying theya re too lazy to enforce them?

Let's be clear, they do enforce those laws against free speech with possible prison sentences, or there wouldn't be cases that judges sometimes accept bad faith arguments in.

[Tuor]

You specifically spoke about moral integrity. You even spoke about "being rude."

Lets see if you understand this once for all. We use a lot of bad wording here, we say whatever we wish, and no one goes to jail, OK?

[Machismo]

Lets see if you understand this once for all. We use a lot of bad wording here, we say whatever we wish, and no one goes to jail, OK?

Which is why I wondered why you brought up moral integrity and being rude.

[Ripster42]

Lets see if you understand this once for all. We use a lot of bad wording here, we say whatever we wish, and no one goes to jail, OK?

Then why are there defamation laws with possible 4.5 year prison sentences? 48 people were sentenced to prison under Portugal's blasphemy and defamation laws in 2013.

[Tuor]

Then why are there defamation laws with possible 4.5 year prison sentences? 48 people were sentenced to prison under Portugal's blasphemy and defamation laws in 2013.

If you spread false information over someone, like calling a protitute to somone, and has a result that person had real problems, like losing its job, and they got the evidences that you did it, then you in the hands of the judge.

EDIT:
Some people are really mean, our law protects people in those situations.

[Ripster42]

If you spread false information over someone, like calling a protitute to somone, and has a result that person had real problems, like losing its job, and they got the evidences that you did it, then you in the hands of the judge.

Yes. That means your speech is more restrictive than ours. You're never going to be facing prison for that in the US. The most that can happen is a monetary penalty, which requires the defamed person to sue the other. This is why we're saying your speech is less free than ours. Because it is.

The only time you're going to be facing prison for speech is if you threaten someone, plan a crime and then enact that crime (conspiracy), incite a mob to kill/injure, or yell fire in a crowded theatre (negligent homicide if someone dies).

[Tuor]

That means your speech is more restrictive than ours.

Then go to a portuguese twitter account and you would be surprised...

EDIT:
Is that bad to protect peoples integrity? I can assure you, unlike what @Machismo said there are no real limitation in our speech, that includes not agreeing with anything, that includes the governement.

[Lynarii]

If you spread false information over someone, like calling a protitute to somone, and has a result that person had real problems, like losing its job, and they got the evidences that you did it, then you in the hands of the judge.

That is a restriction on free speech. Just like anti child-porn laws are technically restrictions on free speech. Whenever people are discussing freedom of speech, it's important to remember that no civilized country in the world has truly unrestricted free speech. They ALL draw lines, because the vast majority of people recognize that certain things are vile enough and dangerous enough that they cannot be allowed. So debating absolute freedom of speech is absurd, the question is never 'can restrictions be put on free speech' and always 'Is this restriction truly required, can it's goal be achieved in a different way, or is it's goal even valuable enough to restrict something so important to begin with?' Which leads to the line being placed in different locations depending on the country, but to pretend that a line placed where you like it doesn't exist and therefore anyone discussing a line hates freedom is disingenuous at best.

[Ripster42]

Then go to a portuguese twitter account and you would be surprised...

People go to prison yearly in your country for defamation. With increased penalties if you're speaking about how the gov't does its job. I've already linked you the laws and have shown that people are prosecuted for those laws.

[Lynarii]

Then go to a portuguese twitter account and you would be surprised...

EDIT:
Is that bad to protect peoples integrity? I can assure you, unlike what @Machismo said there are no real limitation in our speech, that includes not agreeing with anything, that includes the governement.

We're not saying that anti-defamation laws are bad, I happen to believe that it IS important to protect people's integrity from attack. It's just wrong to pretend that it isn't a restriction on speech just because it happens to be a restriction that serves a genuine need that most of us recognize as also important to a healthy society.

[Tuor]

People go to prison yearly in your country for defamation. With increased penalties if you're speaking about how the gov't does its job. I've already linked you the laws and have shown that people are prosecuted for those laws.

Except you don't understand anything of what i said, because you trying to make a point in turning the main point of this thread, secondary, you don't like it so you poiting int another direction that fits your point. it's like, we going bad, but those guys are even worst. That is the defintion of a white knight.

Face the truth, here in Portugal no one goes to jail because of a stupid tweet.

[Rennadrel]

I can pretty much guarantee it won't, because we have this thing called the first amendment and private property laws. Unless you are planning on seizing Twitter or Facebook's private property, which is fucking communism, it won't fucking happen.

Unfortunately tech companies have the USCDA to deal with and that is why can be changed on them. Of course, it'll be on the USSC to determine to what length sites like Twitter and Facebook can be considered platforms and publishers, and that is the more contentious issue surrounding section 230 of the CDA.

[Tuor]

We're not saying that anti-defamation laws are bad, I happen to believe that it IS important to protect people's integrity from attack.

You not, others are.

It's just wrong to pretend that it isn't a restriction on speech just because it happens to be a restriction that serves a genuine need that most of us recognize as also important to a healthy society.

I have no restrictions on what i say, and i already a lot of bad stuff that isn't ok... Anyway it isn't my style to say bad things about other people, but i do, if required.

[Lynarii]

You not, others are.


I have no restrictions on what i say, and i already a lot of bad stuff that isn't ok... Anyway it isn't my style to say bad things about other people, but i do, if required.

So you can legally go out in public and start shouting that you have proof that your neighbor has murdered 20 people, sodomized the corpses, and buried them in a field, and you are looking for a group of willing souls to help you storm their house and execute them?

Because I kinda think if you would get in trouble for doing that. Even though all you are doing at that point is saying things. If you can't do that without getting in trouble, then you have a restriction on what you can say. It's a fair restriction, I daresay even a /good/ restriction, and it's one that almost every country out there shares. But a restriction it is nonetheless.

(Also, we are bad but these other guys are worse is whataboutism, not white knighting)

[Ripster42]

Face the truth, here in Portugal no one goes to jail because of a stupid tweet.

Already linked you that people do, in fact, go to jail for things like that in your country. The OP is about whether or not twitter is a common carrier and has to carry other people's speech. You couldn't even be bothered to read the OP before you commented:

I don't like commies or fascists... Who the hell is Clarence Thomas anyway? Never heard of him before.

A US Judge say that there should be limitation to free speech, and i said i am against, because in my constitution there is nothing that limits to me in doing so, where is the limitation?

One thing i am sure, it isn't Portugal that is discussing limitations of free speech, i would love to know the motivations of that judge, and what sort of limitations he defends.

Face the truth, you don't know what you're talking about in this thread because you didn't read the OP, and think sending people to jail for defamation isn't a restriction on freedom of speech.

[Tuor]

Already linked you that people do, in fact, go to jail for things like that in your country.

Because they deserved it.

The OP is about whether or not twitter is a common carrier and has to carry other people's speech. You couldn't even be bothered to read the OP before you commented:

Face the truth, you don't know what you're talking about in this thread because you didn't read the OP, and think sending people to jail for defamation isn't a restriction on freedom of speech.

My mistake, the title might be missleading... But i still find strange a court of a foreign country that has the power of limiting free speech.

[Ripster42]

You not, others are.

We're saying defamation laws are a restriction on freedom of speech. Correctly. You're denying reality and claiming it's not. You're not going to face those type of penalties for speech that isn't a threat, planning a crime and carrying it out, or that leads to imminent death or physical injury. Those are our restrictions on freedom of speech that can land you in jail. You add an additional one, defamation.

This entire thread has been about balancing freedom of association against freedom of speech, and you're literally arguing against the guy that is trying to favor speech over association in this specific case while going after him for limiting speech. You don't know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

My mistake, the title might be missleading... But i still find strange a court of a foreign country that has the power of limiting free speech.

Your own country has the same thing. Your constitutional court.

- - - Updated - - -

(Also, we are bad but these other guys are worse is whataboutism, not white knighting)

The whole thing is about drawing parallel. This person is decrying the same system he has in his own country while not even addressing the issue at hand in the OP because he didn't read it.

[Lynarii]

On the OP, the thread title is kinda awful to be honest for the reasons that I've mentioned before. The problem is NOT that Clarence Thomas thinks free speech should be regulated, because it already IS. The problem is that he was floating the idea of specifically regulating a piece of it for partisan political reasons, rather than a good faith argument over how such a restriction is required for protecting all citizens and allowing society to function properly.

Lets be honest though, whatever you think about his specific GOALS in bringing up such regulation, the broader topic of where things like social media fits into society is one that desperately needs more clarity. The idea that Trump couldn't block people because it's official government communication but Twitter could block Trump because private company is a direct contradiction. I'm personally of the opinion that the government has been in the wrong on that topic, Twitter has not (to my knowledge) asked to be the official method of communication for any government function, and the government shouldn't be using it as such. But having a single thing being official or unofficial depending on the whims of which is most useful that day is BS and only causes confusion and problems.