FCC Chairman Ajit Pai bringing down hammer on social media companies after censorship rampage

I think that social media outlets need to have standards because they could be subject to lcasuits for slander and defamation of character.

Almost two million people saw the fake tweet before it was taken down. (Not to mention the fake tweets Trump posted, especially the hateful conspiracy theory tweet that Bin Laden had not been killed and disparaging the brave Navy Seals, including one who lost his life.)

Fantine said:

I think that social media outlets need to have standards because they could be subject to lcasuits for slander and defamation of character.

Almost two million people saw the fake tweet before it was taken down. (Not to mention the fake tweets Trump posted, especially the hateful conspiracy theory tweet that Bin Laden had not been killed and disparaging the brave Navy Seals, including one who lost his life.)

Click to expand...

You don't have any actual knowledge of what is fake and what is not. That's why things like this are so important. People are not (should not be) limited to expressing only the opinions that you agree with.

Let's see what the new rule is and if it survives a court challenge.

Freedom of speech... why is this such a difficult concept?

I wonder if some unintended consequences would change how Christian Forums operates and who they can silence…

Arcangl86 said:

Let's see what the new rule is and if it survives a court challenge.

Click to expand...

Good thing they can defend their censorship because there is no free speech in the constitution. All good cults depend on only one view being allowed.

timothyu said:

Good thing they can defend their censorship because there is no free speech in the constitution. All good cults depend on only one view being allowed.

Click to expand...

This isn't a free speech issue since social media is not a branch of the government. This is a natter of administrative law, specifically if the FCC has the authority to interpret section 230 in a way that is against the plain meaning of the text.

Arcangl86 said:

This isn't a free speech issue since social media is not a branch of the government.

Click to expand...

They are still stifling free speech and information contrary to the preferred view, in the same way the Soviet media used to do.

LostMarbels said:

Freedom of speech... why is this such a difficult concept?

Click to expand...

But Twitter and Facebook are private companies and platforms. They do get to set rules on what can be posted. Just like CF.

Paulos23 said:

But Twitter and Facebook are private companies and platforms. They do get to set rules on what can be posted. Just like CF.

Click to expand...

One would assume that the rules couldn't conflict with the constitution. They may be able to pull this crap off in other countries but because this is based on election related or American issues it must follow the rules of country first. Keep up the taking away of people's freedoms over the last 20 years and soon the Republic will be gone. This of course will immensely please media of the world wide web because globalism is their way of life.

Paulos23 said:

But Twitter and Facebook are private companies and platforms. They do get to set rules on what can be posted. Just like CF.

Click to expand...

Gay wedding cakes anyone? Do people remember you will do as the law dictates, or we destroy your livelihood? Freedom of speech is a constitutionally afforded, inalienable right.

CF definitely got one thing right in my book, allowing individuals to separate themselves on sub forums. Individuals are allowed to voice their opinions even if it is not across the entire forum. This allows people the freedom of speech while also allowing others to not enjoin certain forms of speech. Might be a good template.

The issue I have is not allowing speech simply because a forum/site/ what have you, does not agree with that point of view.

LostMarbels said:

Gay wedding cakes anyone? Do people remember you will do as the law dictates, or we destroy your livelihood? Freedom of speech is a constitutionally afforded, inalienable right.

CF definitely got one thing right in my book, allowing individuals to separate themselves on sub forums. Individuals are allowed to voice their opinions even if it is not across the entire forum. This allows people the freedom of speech while also allowing others to not enjoin certain forms of speech. Might be a good template.

The issue I have is not allowing speech simply because a forum/site/ what have you, does not agree with that point of view.

Click to expand...

Could you please point me to which subforum on this site we are allowed to defend the morality of homosexuality and/or abortion? Thanks.

Skewpoint said:

Could you please point me to which subforum on this site we are allowed to defend the morality of homosexuality and/or abortion? Thanks.

Click to expand...

We openly discuss such issues all the time on the non-chrisitian ethics forum. From what I understand.

I have even discussed homosexuality under TOE before. As in genetics. A completely amoral, nonreligious conversation.

LostMarbels said:

We openly discuss such issues all the time on the non-chrisitian ethics forum. From what I understand.

Click to expand...

Well somebody should tell the mods there as per this link :
"Homosexuality, Same-Sex Marriage, Bisexuality and Transgenderism/Transexualism: Discussion of these topics must comply with the sitewide rule barring the promotion of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, and transgenderism/transexualism. Discussion and debate should only be directed toward political, legal, historical and civil rights issues, and should not be directed toward the morality of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality or transgenderism/transexualism."

I would like to promote all of that on this site. Is my free speech being denied?

Skewpoint said:

would like to promote all of that on this site. Is my free speech being denied?

Click to expand...

That has nothing at all to do with me or my belief that all speech is protected.

LostMarbels said:

The issue I have is not allowing speech simply because a forum/site/ what have you, does not agree with that point of view.

Click to expand...

LostMarbels said:

That has nothing at all to do with me or my belief that all speech is protected.

Click to expand...

Care to try again? This site does not agree with my point of view about homosexuality, thus actively bars discussing it. As per your quoted post, do you have an issue with my speech being stifled?

SeventyOne said:

You don't have any actual knowledge of what is fake and what is not. That's why things like this are so important. People are not (should not be) limited to expressing only the opinions that you agree with.

Click to expand...

Washington Post was given the material and asked for documentation and evidence of truth. Receiving none, they refused to publish the material.
Likewise, Facebook and Twitter made attempts to verify the veracity of the material and nothing was presented.
The fact that a Republican Senate Intelligence Committee had investigated the situation thoroughly and found nothing was taken into consideration as well.
Perhaps if our country were policing itself media outlets could have more confidence--but every time proposals to allocate funding to prevent foreign interference in our elections was proposed, Republicans refused to allocate funding--because they knew that these hostile powers were benefiting Trump.
It is a national disgrace that we are not aggressively combatting this interference--it's Reason 593 or so on my list of why Trump must go.

Skewpoint said:

Care to try again? This site does not agree with my point of view about homosexuality, thus actively bars discussing it. As per your quoted post, do you have an issue with my speech being stifled?

Click to expand...

Yes. But I also believe you do not have the right to not be challenged for your speech.

LostMarbels said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Cool. Is what Christian Forums doing unconstitutional?