Are you in an Anti-Free speech state?

Bradskii said:

Exactly right. Excellent idea. If you don't want your kids to read a certain book then you sit them down and say 'I don't want you to read this book.'

Click to expand...

Might be a better idea to nag them TO read the book. When I was a kid, nothing made me not want to do something more than my parents nagging me to do it.

On the other hand, if I were told to not read a book, I'd probably be racing to read it.

-- A2SG, did manage to read a lot of good books that way, though.....

A2SG said:

Might be a better idea to nag them TO read the book. When I was a kid, nothing made me not want to do something more than my parents nagging me to do it.

Click to expand...

We used to do exactly that with our daughter in reverse. She'd often refuse to go for her nightly bath when she was young. So my wife would ask me, in front of her, to run the water for the bath. Nope. No way. She just splashes around and plays with her toys. Forget it. And we'd have this pretend argument and our daughter would eventually say 'Hey, you can't stop me having a bath! Tell him, mum!'

Bradskii said:

We used to do exactly that with our daughter in reverse. She'd often refuse to go for her nightly bath when she was young. So my wife would ask me, in front of her, to run the water for the bath. Nope. No way. She just splashes around and plays with her toys. Forget it. And we'd have this pretend argument and our daughter would eventually say 'Hey, you can't stop me having a bath! Tell him, mum!'

Click to expand...

I know, for a fact, that my mother got me to read more than a couple books by saying I can't read them. I remember clearly reading To Kill A Mockingbird specifically because of that...and boy, am I glad I did! Great book.

I also remember in Jr. High having to read Cheaper By The Dozen for a class, and something about the teacher's attitude ("you kids don't read, so I'm going to force you to") bugged me (I was very much a voracious reader) so I deliberately decided not to read it. During class discussions, I paid attention to what was being said about it, and when it came time to take a test on the book, I got a B. Afterwards, the book sounded interesting, so I read it.

-- A2SG, it was okay, but probably ultimately not worth the fuss I made about it.....

durangodawood said:

Sec 230 makes some sense in a lot of ways. Are you proposing it be overturned once and for all because the lingering threat of it being overturned gives congress potential leverage over the companies?

Click to expand...

Actually, my position is the opposite, I think it should be strengthened.

Social media companies shouldn't be liable for user-posted content anymore than AT&T should be held liable if someone phones in a bomb threat using a cell phone that happens to hit AT&T towers.


While the "up in the air/at risk being tossed out" ethos does give congress undue leverage, I don't think the answer for them is to scrap it, I think the answer is for them to not overstep their boundaries with regards to the State Actor Doctrine and the limitations it imposes on what private organizations can (or cannot) do when acting at the behest of the government.

Vambram said:

The 5th Circuit previously ruled in Missouri v. Biden that administration officials “likely violated” the First Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction banning the government from communicating with social media companies to limit speech.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS tells the 5th Circuit to knock it off already.

Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms​

State leaders in Missouri and Louisiana, in addition to individual social media users, filed a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment by operating a sprawling federal “censorship enterprise” to improperly influence platforms to modify or take down posts related to public health and elections.

In a 6-3 ruling, the majority said the challengers did not have legal grounds — or standing — to bring the case against the Biden administration.

The dispute is one of several before the justices this term that tests Republican-backed claims that social media companies are working with Democratic allies to silence conservative voices.

The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana argued that the federal government coerced social media companies to suppress speech of individual users and became too deeply involved in the companies’ decisions to remove certain content.

A district court judge in Louisiana ruled against the Biden administration and barred thousands of federal employees from improperly influencing tech companies to remove certain content.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed that decision to a smaller set of government officials and agencies, including the surgeon general’s office, the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI.

SCOTUS ruling:

The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation. And while the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the plat- forms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exer- cised their own judgment.

The plaintiffs fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions and the defendants’ communications with the platforms.

Nor have the three plaintiff doctors established a likeli- hood that their past restrictions are traceable to either the White House officials or the CDC.

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

Bradskii said:

Exactly right. Excellent idea. If you don't want your kids to read a certain book then you sit them down and say 'I don't want you to read this book.'

Click to expand...

Not in my home - I taught my children to be obedient.

hislegacy said:

Not in my home - I taught my children to be obedient.

Click to expand...

And that is the way it should always work.

hislegacy said:

Not in my home - I taught my children to be obedient.

Click to expand...

I didn't. I taught mine to think for himself. I was never one for the "Cuz I said so!" edict. It certainly never worked for me when I was a kid.

If I told my kid to do something, and he didn't want to do it, he would say so. It forced me to come up with a good reason why I wanted him to do the thing, rather than just telling him to obey me unilaterally, without question.

Yeah, it was frustrating sometimes...and I have regretted it more than once...but now that the kid is an adult who thinks for himself, rather than just accept authority without question, I see the value.

-- A2SG, may not be an approach that works for everyone, though....