Freedom of Speech

[JacksBratt]

I was watching L.A. Marzulli and he made a very good statement. I believe that he is correct.

He stated that if the problems of people being muzzled on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are any indication where the "freedom of Speech" is headed, soon the Bible will be labeled as "Hate Speech", Prophesy will be labeled as "misinformation" and the second coming of Christ will be labeled as a "Conspiracy theory".

All of this concerns me. Any other comments?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was watching L.A. Marzulli and he made a very good statement. I believe that he is correct.

He stated that if the problems of people being muzzled on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are any indication where the "freedom of Speech" is headed, soon the Bible will be labeled as "Hate Speech", Prophesy will be labeled as "misinformation" and the second coming of Christ will be labeled as a "Conspiracy theory".

All of this concerns me. Any other comments?

And faith in God, particularly in Christ, a communicable health problem.

 

[A_Thinker]

I was watching L.A. Marzulli and he made a very good statement. I believe that he is correct.

He stated that if the problems of people being muzzled on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are any indication where the "freedom of Speech" is headed, soon the Bible will be labeled as "Hate Speech", Prophesy will be labeled as "misinformation" and the second coming of Christ will be labeled as a "Conspiracy theory".

All of this concerns me. Any other comments?

Freedom of speech concerns only apply to governmental suppression of speech.

Publishers can publish what they wish. That's their freedom ...

 

[TheWhat?]

With social media I think we've reached the limits of the benefits of free speech, where it's no longer being shown to be beneficial toward an open and free society. I'm all for freedom of speech but I'm inclined to rethink the philosophy behind it. The various echo chambers where nothing but crazy, detrimental ideas and speech are allowed to fester, like QAnon or other extremes, I think should be reinterpreted as unlawful assembly where such becomes a legitimate threat to society at large.

 

[TheWhat?]

And, to clarify, I don't think crazy conspiracy theories should be censored. That would be a step too far. It's more of an organizational problem. The echo chambers should be dispersed -- people should still have every right to air their crazy thoughts, in an open forum where they're allowed to breathe and get some varying opinions.

 

[anna ~ grace]

And, to clarify, I don't think crazy conspiracy theories should be censored. That would be a step too far. It's more of an organizational problem. The echo chambers should be dispersed -- people should still have every right to air their crazy thoughts, in an open forum where they're allowed to breathe and get some varying opinions.

I can see that being a thing.

 

[Jake Arsenal]

And faith in God, particularly in Christ, a communicable health problem.

communicable health problem like: After decades of near silence from the CDC, the agency's director is speaking up about gun violence - CNN


2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

communicable health problem like: After decades of near silence from the CDC, the agency's director is speaking up about gun violence - CNN


2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Wow. When did such things become the CDC's business?

 

[JacksBratt]

Freedom of speech concerns only apply to governmental suppression of speech.

Publishers can publish what they wish. That's their freedom ...

You are correct. Is that not why they are arguing as to whether the big three are acting like editors or if it should be wrong for them to edit?

They even stepped to the point of cancelling other platforms that also had a right to allow others to say what they wanted and were allowing things to be stated. Think of "Parlor" and "Rumble" and even a Christian founded platform called "Gab" that had the financial institutions step in and not allow payments on line.

Seems like a strong force in shutting up those that want to be heard.... if it doesn't fit the agenda supported by the few, unelected, owners of the platform.

That is the big question. When these platforms are more powerful than the government. They can easily, if they had the mindset, totally cancel the truth and allow falsehoods.

This is evident in their blatantly obvious cancelling of those that are leaning right and allowing those that are left leaning in their views.

It may be all well and good for those who follow Christ and lean left in their views.. Until the Christian truths are considered fair game to be cancelled.

 

[JacksBratt]

With social media I think we've reached the limits of the benefits of free speech, where it's no longer being shown to be beneficial toward an open and free society. I'm all for freedom of speech but I'm inclined to rethink the philosophy behind it. The various echo chambers where nothing but crazy, detrimental ideas and speech are allowed to fester, like QAnon or other extremes, I think should be reinterpreted as unlawful assembly where such becomes a legitimate threat to society at large.

Well, I full well believe that I can go to any street corner and shout what ever I want. Long as I don't incite violence or tell people to break a law.

This should be the same on any social media. One professor stated that the "right to hate" is actually a very important right. It is also the right of the masses to call out anyone on the street corner to support what they are stating.

It's a slippery slope when the very few take control of what the masses can and cannot hear.

It is my right to listen and make up my own mind. Controlling what is said.. is the precursor to telling me what I can and cannot know and think.

This is what LA meant... How long before they tell us we cannot preach the gospel?

 

[JacksBratt]

And, to clarify, I don't think crazy conspiracy theories should be censored. That would be a step too far. It's more of an organizational problem. The echo chambers should be dispersed -- people should still have every right to air their crazy thoughts, in an open forum where they're allowed to breathe and get some varying opinions.

In the end... who gets to decide, then, what can and cannot be said?

 

[TheWhat?]

In the end... who gets to decide, then, what can and cannot be said?

Good question. That's why I look at it as an organizational problem rather than free vs censored speech. I'm not a 4chan user, which is where I think QAnon gained traction, so this is conjecture, but my concern is that venues like 4chan may be a little too closed off and isolated, creating the echo chamber that QAnon became. These social media sites may be overreacting to some legitimate content to protect themselves, because it bears resemblance to dangerous trends. I think if there were a clearer consensus that it's not speech which needs to be limited, just the organization these sites provide that needs to be modified, then that might actually protect other content from being unnecessarily censored.

 

[Jesus is my Superhero]

Issue #1 concerning this is that children are more indoctrinated to a leftist mindset than being taught to think critically about communicated ideas.(Safe spaces)

Issue #2 is that the U'S. Congress is now an Oligarchy with self serving dictates being promulgated from on high, seeking self enrichment by serving wealthy individuals and large corporations, and not representing the voters. Both political parties are the different side to the same coin. Over the past 40 years we have witnessed the laying bare the industrial might of this nation in order to facilitate the desire of greed by the politician and the corporation.

Issue #3 is there isn't a righteous Rule of Law. Justice is meted out in accordance to who you are, or, whom you know. Great wealth can circumvent prosecution. plenty of examples in the political realm and with large corporations having a mere fine levied against them.

 

[A_Thinker]

They even stepped to the point of cancelling other platforms that also had a right to allow others to say what they wanted and were allowing things to be stated. Think of "Parlor" and "Rumble" and even a Christian founded platform called "Gab" that had the financial institutions step in and not allow payments on line.

"They" in this case ... are American citizens, who are free to do what ever they wish (that's not criminal) with their own money, power, and influence ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Seems like a strong force in shutting up those that want to be heard.... if it doesn't fit the agenda supported by the few, unelected, owners of the platform.

This is your dilemma.

What you are defending is not the right to speech, but actually a non-right of publishing or broadcasting of speech. Anyone can speak what they wish ... to those within their circles of reach, ... but there isn't a right to have your speech broadcast into every American space.

And these limited platforms have existed since the advent of publishing. Christian publications, scientific journals, newspapers, television, and radio, even popular magazines ... all vet the voices to be heard in their publications and/or broadcasts. There exists no right for an anti-vaccine voice to be heard in a immunology journal. But, of course, that anti-vaccine voice has the opportunity to find (or create) a platform that is suited to air that voice.

If you think about it, it's all very market driven. You don't have a right to sell your goods in my store. But, of course, you can open up your own store ...

 

[A_Thinker]

That is the big question. When these platforms are more powerful than the government. They can easily, if they had the mindset, totally cancel the truth and allow falsehoods.

They can only successfully promote the voices which their hearers wish to hear. Else those hearers will turn to others publishers/broadcasters.

 

[A_Thinker]

This should be the same on any social media. One professor stated that the "right to hate" is actually a very important right. It is also the right of the masses to call out anyone on the street corner to support what they are stating.

This is an example of protected speech ... which may or may not merit the opportunity to be aired further than the public square.

"One professor stated that the "right to hate" is actually a very important right."

A publisher may look at such a statement ... and deny such a statement publication/broadcast ... simply because it's "one professor", as opposed to "a concensus of professors". Of course, if enough citizens want that voice to be broadcast, then an apt platform can be found and/or created to air it. (I'm sure that there already exists a platform for such speech). And American citizens will determine the popularity of the platforms that exist.

Nobody has a right to heard on any given platform ... just because that platform happens to be popular.

 

[Estrid]

I was watching L.A. Marzulli and he made a very good statement. I believe that he is correct.

He stated that if the problems of people being muzzled on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are any indication where the "freedom of Speech" is headed, soon the Bible will be labeled as "Hate Speech", Prophesy will be labeled as "misinformation" and the second coming of Christ will be labeled as a "Conspiracy theory".

All of this concerns me. Any other comments?

Interesting thought.
There are things the Bible says about atheists
that, if said of some racial minority in public
might not sound so good.
What do you think?

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

With social media I think we've reached the limits of the benefits of free speech, where it's no longer being shown to be beneficial toward an open and free society. I'm all for freedom of speech but I'm inclined to rethink the philosophy behind it. The various echo chambers where nothing but crazy, detrimental ideas and speech are allowed to fester, like QAnon or other extremes, I think should be reinterpreted as unlawful assembly where such becomes a legitimate threat to society at large.

Hi I was not a QAnon supporter and used that thread to label Q as a false Messiah and where the outlandish claims of secret wars underground and all I rolled my eyes and showed in the scriptures that there is no wrestling sort of reversal and the good guy who is being pummeled turns the match around. But no one believes total BS and many of the things Q addressed like the Satanic nature of the shadow government and the types of rituals and use of adrenochrome and all has a basis in reality. You see if you shut down freedom of ideas and then select who's ideas are crime it is pretty easy for one group to gain total control of information. Who knows who started Q and was it a real guy or an operation designed to bring us to this point of the freedom of speech debate?
We see open lawlessness in the name of Antifa being celebrated as progress and legit and the capital protesters deemed the worst terrorist ever. There is a partisan line on this issue and the military is drilling for counter terrorist called DVE domestic violent extremist. These are anyone who disagrees with the policy on covid and soon to be added climate change restrictions which are coming down the pike. camps are being prepared to house the dissenters in many western countries.

We did well when we had free speech and censorship via the Hayes code. This reflected Christian and American values which have been replaced with progressive globalist views. Yes the Bible is a threat and Jesus noted that they hated Him they will hate us and he said they hate Him because He declared their deeds evil. Many churches no longer do this and they have formed a friendship with the world which is enmity towards Christ. LGTBQ rights have challenged Romans one in court and come countries already have noted that as hate speech.

 

[Jake Arsenal]

They can only successfully promote the voices which their hearers wish to hear. Else those hearers will turn to others publishers/broadcasters.

This seems to represent a prevalent misunderstanding of both publishing and broadcasting. Unfortunately, such laissez-faire rules for publishers and broadcasters do not exist. The liberties enjoyed by newspapers are overseen by the U.S. court system, while television and radio broadcasters are monitored by the courts and heavily regulated by the FCC.

Under current law(in the United States), social media platforms are not considered to be publishers nor broadcasters, which means they are not responsible for (and cannot be sued or punished for) the things people post on their websites.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects “interactive computer service(s)” from being treated as publishers. This decision was based on Congress’s initial findings that “the internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”