Are you in an Anti-Free speech state?

[Vambram]

I will cast iron guarantee you that if you went to a MAGA rally and told anyone that the Dems were trying to stop Republican officials meeting with social network companies to help prevent disgusting sexual content by perverts and homosexuals being made available to children and to help prevent our elderly being scammed out of their money and to stop them showing graphic violent videos to our kids then they'd be up in arms.

'They will refuse to allow us our constitutional right to have a say in what these people put out on their so called 'social networks'. I mean, ma'am, do you want these sort of people spreading lies and propoganda about our party and our elections? Sir, do you want these people to publish whatever they want without our elected officials having no say in the matter?'

'Well, hell no! This is the US of A. Not some commie country where these companies can just put out any garbage they want'.

Of course not. Thank y'all for your support.

The illustration y'all are talking about is nothing more than a distraction.

Unless y'all can demonstrate otherwise, there are not any objections towards Democratic OR Republican officials, and/or government agencies "meeting with social network companies to help prevent disgusting sexual content by perverts and homosexuals being made available to children and to help prevent our elderly being scammed out of their money and to stop them showing graphic violent videos to our kids."

 

[ralliann]

Are You in an Anti-Free Speech State? We Now Have The Definitive List

For years, we have discussed the alarming shift in the Democratic party on free speech with candidates running on pledges to censor opposing views and politicians supporting blacklisting and censor…

jonathanturley.org

For years, we have discussed the alarming shift in the Democratic party on free speech with candidates running on pledges to censor opposing views and politicians supporting blacklisting and censorship on social media. Many citizens oppose such efforts to restrict their rights under the First Amendment, but are unaware of the work of their representatives to limit free speech. Now, a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens.

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.

Not surprisingly, the state of California is leading the effort to get the Supreme Court to reverse a decision enjoining the government from censorship efforts. California has long sought to impose speech limits on doctors, businesses, and citizens to silence opposing viewpoints.

However, 23 Democrat-led states joined this ignoble effort in signing on to the brief of California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The brief lauds past efforts of these states to combat “harmful content” on the Internet and to protect the public from “misleading information” through partnerships with social media companies.

So here is the list to see if you are residing in an anti-free speech state:

Quite a few states there. It will be interesting to see how it lines up with those that want to disenfranchise voters. But I think the Supreme court will weigh in before they go through the list.

 

[Vambram]

It's your thread. Why haven't you read the brief?

I have read the brief. And I do believe that there is a clear distinction between discussions with social media platforms by agents of government agencies and then the same said government agencies and agents causing censorship and suppression on social media sites. However, it is also clear that it was too easy for Twitter and other social media platforms to be used, manipulated, or influenced by those employees of the government agencies in order to suppress and censor lawful free speech.

 

[Bradskii]

Unless y'all can demonstrate otherwise, there are not any objections towards Democratic OR Republican officials, and/or government agencies "meeting with social network companies...

The Missouri lawsuit resulted in an injunction 'barring...federal officials from participating in this important discourse.' So the lawsuit specifically prevents what you say it doesn't. It's there on Page 1 of the brief. Which goes on to request the court reverse that decision.

There are then a few pages detailing the types of content which has already been mutually agreed between government officials and the companies as being undesirable. And they were the type of content that I've mentioned previously.

That's the whole story. That's it. All the complaints about freedom of speech are just a nonsensical smoke and mirrors distraction.

 

[Vambram]

The lawsuit says nothing about why unlawful free speech should not be censored or suppressed.

 

[Vambram]

"That's the whole story. That's it. All the complaints about freedom of speech are just a nonsensical smoke and mirrors distraction."


Clearly, the 5th Circuit Court disagrees with you, and later in 2024, we shall learn what the SCOTUS justices believe about this case.

 

[Bradskii]

The lawsuit says nothing about why unlawful free speech should not be censored or suppressed.

Free speech is not the issue. The term isn't even used in the 30+ pages of arguments and examples in the brief. Your use of it, and the use of it in the article to which you linked is a dog whistle.

The issue is only whether recognised government officials can enter into discourse with social media companies to determine what is and what is not suitable content. Nothing else.

 

[Vambram]

Free speech is not the issue. The term isn't even used in the 30+ pages of arguments and examples in the brief. Your use of it, and the use of it in the article to which you linked is a dog whistle.

The issue is only whether recognised government officials can enter into discourse with social media companies to determine what is and what is not suitable content. Nothing else.

Apparently, there are federal judges who disagree with your opinion. Please do not attempt to distract this discussion by talking about symbolic "dog whistles."

 

[Bradskii]

"That's the whole story. That's it. All the complaints about freedom of speech are just a nonsensical smoke and mirrors distraction."


Clearly, the 5th Circuit Court disagrees with you, and later in 2024, we shall learn what the SCOTUS justices believe about this case.

The choice is that any social media company can post any content they like with zero regulations. Predators trolling for kids, scams, porn, live screening of shootings...you name it. It's all in that brief. Or there are some controls. That's it.

Only a fool would select the first option. Now if you want to pick the second and argue about what the limits of those controls should be then I'm all ears.

 

[Vambram]

Unlawful speech breaks the law and is not supported by the First Amendment protections. It really is not that difficult to figure out.

 

[ralliann]

Apparently, there are federal judges who disagree with your opinion. Please do not attempt to distract this discussion by talking about symbolic "dog whistles."

Page 2)
Since the advent of social media, government and private companies have often shared information and engaged in dialogue about best practices in mitigating the spread of harmful content on social-media platforms. In this lawsuit brought by respondents Missouri, Louisiana, and several individuals, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Doughty, J.) issued a sweeping preliminary injunction barring thousands of federal officials from participating in this important discourse. On appeal, the Fifth Circuitlargely maintained the terms of the district court’s injunction and upheld the district court’s core holding that many of the federal defendants had either “coerced” or “significantly encouraged” social-media platforms to “censor” protected speech.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently, there are federal judges who disagree with your opinion.

The judges opined that the government had overstepped what they considered to be reasonable in persuading companies that content was undesirable. So they said no more discussions. The brief wants to reverse that decision.

Again, if you want to discuss how we control what a government does in persuading a company to delete content then I'd like to hear it. It's an important discussion to have. But if you say you don't want any regulations then I've no interest in discussing anything further.

 

[Bradskii]

Unlawful speech breaks the law and is not supported by the First Amendment protections. It really is not that difficult to figure out.

Yeah, something unlawful generally does break the law. But we aren't talking about unlawful content. We are talking about undesirable content.

Want to talk about who decides what is undesirable? OK. But don't waste my time if your opinion is that there should be no controls.

 

[Vambram]

Yeah, something unlawful generally does break the law. But we aren't talking about unlawful content. We are talking about undesirable content.

Want to talk about who decides what is undesirable? OK. But don't waste my time if your opinion is that there should be no controls.

Please see post #51 from ralliann which is a post I have reacted to with an "agree" checkmark.

 

[Bradskii]

Please see post #51 from ralliann which is a post I have reacted to with an "agree" checkmark.

Yeah, I already explained what the judges had decided and why. But then they went on to say 'no more discussions'.

Let me make this simple. We're not talking about illegal content here. That's already covered by the relevant laws. We're talking about what you and I would both agree is undesirable content. Yes, we would definitely disagree on some matters. But we'd surely agree on others. So do you agree that there should be some controls? Or do we give any existing or new social media company free reign to post any content at all.

What do you say?

 

[Vambram]

Yeah, I already explained what the judges had decided and why. But then they went on to say 'no more discussions'.

Let me make this simple. We're not talking about illegal content here. That's already covered by the relevant laws. We're talking about what you and I would both agree is undesirable content. Yes, we would definitely disagree on some matters. But we'd surely agree on others. So do you agree that there should be some controls? Or do we give any existing or new social media company free reign to post any content at all.

What do you say?

Well, first we would need to have a discussion, or agreement, about what is undesirable content as compared to unlawful content.
Then, we ought to think about this question, even if lawful who gets to decide if something is undesirable or not? Whether or not something is desirable or undesirable can be really different depending upon the values, morals, and beliefs from one person compared to another.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, first we would need to have a discussion, or agreement, about what is undesirable content as compared to unlawful content.
Then, we ought to think about this question, even if lawful who gets to decide if something is undesirable or not? Whether or not something is desirable or undesirable can be really different depending upon the values, morals, and beliefs from one person compared to another.

There would be examples, like a maniac live screening a shooting at a school for example, that we'd both agree shouldn't be shown. I think we'd probably disagree on most things but there are some where we'd say 'No, this is definitely wrong.'

So on that basis, we'd agree that there should be some sort of controls. But exactly what they are, what they cover and how they are implemented etc would need to be discussed. Agreed?

 

[NxNW]

It appears to me that, unless someone were to walk up to you and place the infamous Hunter Biden laptop in your own hands, you will always claim that this laptop is a fantasy instead of a reality.

I'd settle for a photo or an actual acknowledgement from law enforcement.

 

[ralliann]

Come back to reality about the laptop, and then we will talk.

Has Hunter denied the laptop?

 

[NxNW]

There would be examples, like a maniac live screening a shooting at a school for example, that we'd both agree shouldn't be shown.

I think school shootings should be shown. The right wants to suppress the grim reality of these events, but if it were made available to the public, opinion would change.