Freedom of Speech

[JacksBratt]

If said of any minority, racial or
otherwise. You do understand that, right?

As for "choose", no.

I cannot choose to believe that 2+2=9,
or that it does not equal 4.

The faux- choice you speak of does not
dilute the words in the Bible. I ve read
it, I know what it says.

I could choose to attempt self deception,
but if there a God, he'd not be deceived.

I dont much care for some of it being
hurled at me. (Woud you like to quote some the awful
things it says of those who do not, cannot
believe?)

I apologize, I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry.

 

[Estrid]

I apologize, I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry.

"Hate speech" in Bible? It does say some negative things about
atheists.
Atheism is not a "choice"

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

—Like, something along the lines of anti-monopoly legislation? Dispersion? "Too much power in one place"? If that sort of thing should be done, it should have been done to Facebook, Google, et al first, or to a too-large DC.

 

[JacksBratt]

"Hate speech" in Bible? It does say some negative things about
atheists.
Atheism is not a "choice"

I would disagree with your statement that Atheism is not a choice. We all choose to accept or reject Christ and the bible. We are all given free will. Children born to homes that are Christian based.... grow up and choose to reject it. Some choose Buddhism, or Islam. Some who are raised in other religions grow up to embrace the gospel.

It's not like race. If you are born Asian or Caucasian you cannot change that. Religion is not fixed or unchangeable.

 

[JacksBratt]

With FOX, Newsmax, Blaze, the Hill, Breitbart, right-wing radio, etc. ... I don't know why you think that people are left with only one point of view ...

How many people Watch Breitbart, Newsmax, Blaze or the others... who are not already right wing or open minded.
Many watch one mainstream network every night. Same bat time, same bat station.

I get what you are saying. People can find other sources. However, can we agree that the majority watch YouTube, Twitter, and Face book posts and that these three are the ones that carry the vast majority of news to millennials and younger?


It is great to see the others making progress. Didn't some network want to cancel and block Fox and News max? or am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[TheWhat?]

—Like, something along the lines of anti-monopoly legislation? Dispersion? "Too much power in one place"? If that sort of thing should be done, it should have been done to Facebook, Google, et al first, or to a too-large DC.

Hmm. It's not about power it's about what's healthy for society. Echo chambers aren't good, and yes I think this is a social media problem.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hmm. It's not about power it's about what's healthy for society. Echo chambers aren't good, and yes I think this is a social media problem.

Therefore, then, whatever 'everybody' agrees is healthy for society, rules, and the constitution can take a hike. The founders weren't ignorant buffoons, you know. There's a reason for the first amendment.

 

[TheWhat?]

Therefore, then, whatever 'everybody' agrees is healthy for society, rules, and the constitution can take a hike. The founders weren't ignorant buffoons, you know. There's a reason for the first amendment.

Yes, I know. This is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
​

In some extreme cases I don't think it can be called a "peacable" assembly. Even the founders understood this and I think it needs to be considered for social media.

 

[Jake Arsenal]

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.”

The clearly stated purpose of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was to offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse. Companies have taken advantage of these protections to spread their own ideas while suppressing the ideas of users with whom they disagree. This is starting to increase the division between ideologies, which will eventually result in an irreparable rift. Each ideological group will have their own social media sites, news sources, banks, stores, etc.

I am of the opinion that forums and platforms of user generated content(non-publishers which fall under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) should be treated as public forums and not allowed to censor or remove user content without cause(which must be defined by law).

There are several lawsuits currently moving through the courts, the outcomes of which will set the precedent for the future of free speech in America. It is my hope that all social media companies which have acted as publishers will be held accountable as publishers for everything ever posted on their platforms.

 

[Estrid]

I would disagree with your statement that Atheism is not a choice. We all choose to accept or reject Christ and the bible. We are all given free will. Children born to homes that are Christian based.... grow up and choose to reject it. Some choose Buddhism, or Islam. Some who are raised in other religions grow up to embrace the gospel.

It's not like race. If you are born Asian or Caucasian you cannot change that. Religion is not fixed or unchangeable.

Can you choose to believe that 2+2=9?

 

[Estrid]

Yes, I know. This is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
​

In some extreme cases I don't think it can be called a "peacable" assembly. Even the founders understood this ande I think it needs to be considered for social media.

None of those rights is absolute

 

[Jake Arsenal]

None of those rights is absolute

In the United States of America, all rights listed in the Bill of Rights(first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) are absolute(Supreme Law of the Land) unless changed by constitutional amendment. Any laws passed which contradict those in the U.S. Constitution are null and void.

"As long as I am an American citizen, and as long as American blood runs in these veins, I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject, being amenable to the laws of my country for the same." - Elijah Parish Lovejoy

"I cannot surrender my principles, though the whole world besides should vote them down - I can make no compromise between truth and error, even though my life be the alternative." - Elijah Parish Lovejoy

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I know. This is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
​

In some extreme cases I don't think it can be called a "peacable" assembly. Even the founders understood this and I think it needs to be considered for social media.

There's a wide wide range of opinion as to what is extreme, or dangerous. It seems the question was ignored when all the rioting was going on, then all the sudden applied to others, even to those who were only there, not participating, in the riot, Jan 6. During the earlier riots by leftists, there was considerable property damage, including federal, state and local, businesses ruined, many people were killed and injured, and it is called "mostly peaceful".

Well, I've had about enough of the hypocrisy.

 

[Estrid]

To

In the United States of America, all rights listed in the Bill of Rights(first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) are absolute(Supreme Law of the Land) unless changed by constitutional amendment. Any laws passed which contradict those in the U.S. Constitution are null and void.

"As long as I am an American citizen, and as long as American blood runs in these veins, I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject, being amenable to the laws of my country for the same." - Elijah Parish Lovejoy

"I cannot surrender my principles, though the whole world besides should vote them down - I can make no compromise between truth and error, even though my life be the alternative." - Elijah Parish Lovejoy

Is that what you think?

 

[TheWhat?]

There's a wide wide range of opinion as to what is extreme, or dangerous. It seems the question was ignored when all the rioting was going on, then all the sudden applied to others, even to those who were only there, not participating, in the riot, Jan 6. During the earlier riots by leftists, there was considerable property damage, including federal, state and local, businesses ruined, many people were killed and injured, and it is called "mostly peaceful".

Well, I've had about enough of the hypocrisy.

Everyone has had enough. Everyone is angry. That's part of the problem. Social media is causing a lot of problems. The founders did not, could not, have foreseen social media and its consequences. But, as you said, they weren't fools. They already had this thought out. We just haven't correctly implemented their understanding.

In their time, freedom of speech would be had at social gatherings. We instead, with our social media, consider the gathering to be a publication. It escapes the constraint they rightly intended to impose on social gatherings -- that they be required to be peaceable to be protected. So freedom of speech is overstepping the bounds that the founders had intended. One shouldn't need to have the term defined to see and understand the problem.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Everyone has had enough. Everyone is angry. That's part of the problem. Social media is causing a lot of problems. The founders did not, could not, have foreseen social media and its consequences. But, as you said, they weren't fools. They already had this thought out. We just haven't correctly implemented their understanding.

In their time, freedom of speech would be had at social gatherings. We instead, with our social media, consider the gathering to be a publication. It escapes the constraint they rightly intended to impose on social gatherings -- that they be required to be peaceable to be protected. So freedom of speech is overstepping the bounds that the founders had intended. One shouldn't need to have the term defined to see and understand the problem.

Not to disagree with your analysis, but the implementation is fraught with danger to our freedoms. It is all the excuse the left needs to press their advantage. I would rather have all the noise and hypocrisy and unfairness and still be free, than to have a peace forced upon us by supposedly 'kind' and 'well meaning' tyranny, because the noise and hypocrisy and unfairness identifies the would-be tyrants, before their tyranny is complete.

 

[JacksBratt]

Hmm. It's not about power it's about what's healthy for society. Echo chambers aren't good, and yes I think this is a social media problem.

Yet again I will ask... who decides what is and isn't "healthy" for society to hear? If it is a few who control the social media who also lean to the left and muzzle any view that doesn't parallel those of their own... then.... that is power.

Enough power to ban the President of the United States of America.

This means that you have some people, civilians, who create a platform for people to speak from... who are not elected. Who have no basis to have the power to lead anything. Who have no reason or right to be the arbiters of what is truth or false..... Yet they can take away the microphone from the leader of the most powerful country in the world. A leader who was elected. Who does have the solid bases and duty to make choices for millions of people given to him by those same people.

But a handful of people have the power to deny him the right to speak to those that elected him.

These people then become more powerful than the one who rightfully should be able to speak.

 

[JacksBratt]

Can you choose to believe that 2+2=9?

What are you trying to say?

I don't see how this relates to choosing to be an atheist.

 

[Estrid]

What are you trying to say?

I don't see how this relates to choosing to be an atheist.

Maybe if you try to answer you would get the idea.
Seriously!
Could you decide, choose, to believe Joseph Smith
really found gold books detailing all the book of Mormon?

If not then you see how it's not a choice.

 

[JacksBratt]

Maybe if you try to answer you would get the idea.
Seriously!
Could you decide, choose, to believe Joseph Smith
really found gold books detailing all the book of Mormon?

If not then you see how it's not a choice.

I really don't understand your logic. We all decide what we believe or don't believe.

It's not comparable to an absolute such as a math formula. 2 + 2 always = 4. But it is up to you, me and every other human do decide if they believe in the Bible, the Quran, the book of Mormon or their history of where they came from and who wrote them.

Or

You can believe none of it.

Nobody is forcing me to believe in the gospel. Nobody is forcing my sister in law to say that there is no God.

It is the free will and freedom of personal choice of each one of us.