Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We all know this is about silencing conservative thought and expression no matter how one tries to propagandize it.Oh, I know. It's a world where a Democrat points out that there are limits to what you can and cannot say.
You don't get it, hate and misinformation speech is protected by the US constitution 1st amendment, it takes 2/3 of congress to change this constitutional amendment, and your desired change is nothing more than barking at the moon, ain't gonna happenWhat benefit do hate speech and lies bring to a society?
I understand that. I'm asking YOU what benefit those two things being protected by 1A brings to a society?You don't get it, hate and misinformation speech is protected by the US constitution 1st amendment, it takes 2/3 of congress to change this constitutional amendment, and your desired change is nothing more than barking at the moon, ain't gonna happen
Freedom of speech and expression is a good thing, regardless if you like it or notI understand that. I'm asking YOU what benefit those two things being protected by 1A brings to a society?
Don't be silly, it's not valued, but it is protected. Better to have protected speech than live in a country where the government can toss you in jail for saying something THEY deem as hate speech. Like yours.Whelp, I guess you get to live in a place where lying and hate speech are valued, then.
Well done?
The legislatures who represent we the people.Who gets to define harm?
I simply provided proof that laws aren't needed in order for the government to manipulate private businesses to do their bidding.Did you just build a straw man to tilt against? Why bother? That nothing at all like laws. That’s some Oligarchy fever dream. Weird.
Does that mean you want the legislature (controlled by various political parties at various times) determining what is considered "hate" speech at the moment, and then having people arrested for it?The legislatures who represent we the people.
Yes. But in the interest of liberty I would want the definition to be very narrow, as it mostly is for the other 1st amendment exceptions that have been deemed reasonable over time.Does that mean you want the legislature (controlled by various political parties at various times) determining what is considered "hate" speech at the moment, and then having people arrested for it?
Aren't they rather narrow now? It's already illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but some people still like to claim that one politician making a claim (which may or may not be true but could be researched by the audience) is equivalent to that. Even riots have been glossed over in the name of free speech, even though it cost innocent people their lives, and cost society billions of dollars.Yes. But in the interest of liberty I would want the definition to be very narrow, as it mostly is for the other 1st amendment exceptions that have been deemed reasonable over time.
who decides what "lies" are? The people who rule over us?What benefit do hate speech and lies bring to a society?
I think Im fairly close to you on this issue, and would want to see specifics before judging. Basically Im just not ruling out the concept.Aren't they rather narrow now? It's already illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but some people still like to claim that one politician making a claim (which may or may not be true but could be researched by the audience) is equivalent to that. Even riots have been glossed over in the name of free speech, even though it cost innocent people their lives, and cost society billions of dollars.
There are already laws against slander if a person can claim they've been materially harmed by someone else's lie against them. I'm not sure that it's ever been successfully used against a politician who said something that resulted in the targeted politician not being elected though.
Here's what happens to those who don't:who decides what "lies" are? The people who rule over us?
or what "hate speech" is?
I'm sure every dictator out there would like to define criticism of him or his government as "lies" and "hate" or order to shut it down and have those who engage in it arrested
this is why we have a First Amendment
the campaign ads were misleading and sketchy, and there were ethical issuesA statement from Google said it’s “fairly common” for advertisers to link out or cite external websites in ads. To differentiate these ads from results, the search engine labels the ads as sponsored and includes a “paid for by” disclosure.
But even with a sponsored tag, the ads present a “significant ethical concern,” according to Colin Campbell, associate professor of marketing at the University of San Diego.
He said this is especially true when consumers fail to differentiate online ads.
“Many consumers might form opinions based solely on the altered headlines, without ever reading the actual articles,” Campbell said. “Even those who click through and read the articles may feel misled when they notice the discrepancy between the headline and the content, further eroding trust in the media.”
...
But it’s not unusual for advertisements to cite to publishers, according to Pinar Yildirim, an associate professor of marketing and economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Movie trailers, for instance, often include snippets of critics’ reviews.
Yildirim said that as long as an ad doesn't misrepresent the contents of a news
article, act as clickbait or try to earn undeserved credit by using the publisher's name, then linking back to a news outlet "should not be objectionable."
That news article on Google? Its headline may have been written by a political campaign
Kamala Harris' campaign has been pushing out Google ads with altered news article headlines, something Google called "fairly common."www.usatoday.com
So, the article previously posted here and published by USA Today states both sides of the issue from two marketing professors from well-known and respected universities. Thank you for posting the article. Now I have a much clearer understanding of what this practice entails. I don't see anything about "modifying news articles", thank goodness. It's closer to being like when someone posts a thread here with a heading that doesn't clearly represent the headline and/or content of the article posted in the OP.
Personally, I don't like the practice and agree that it can be harmful if one doesn't read the content of an article. However, it doesn't surprise me, after all, we're talking about advertising/marketing practices whose whole first objective is to get the attention of a target audience.
Yet people call us "conspiracy theorists" if this sort of thing is pointed out......and connected to all of this is the incident from a few days ago where a left-wing Washington Post journalist asked the Whitehouse what it would do to "stop" the Trump interview on X, on the grounds that it could be "misinformation"......
You did not answer my question. I specifically asked about hate speech and lies. Not 1A in general.Freedom of speech and expression is a good thing, regardless if you like it or not
Examples: I hate drug dealers killing people by their unlawful actions, and I enjoy the freedom to speak and express my feelings
I hate the misinformation being promoted by the liberal MSM daily and I enjoy the freedom to speak and express my feelings
And what is so wrong with that? Can you not imagine a society where free speech excludes Hate Speech and lies in the same what that you can't yell 'fire' in a cinema? Hate speech and lies are 'bad things'. Don't you agree that society is better off without (very specifically) Hate Speech and lies?Don't be silly, it's not valued, but it is protected. Better to have protected speech than live in a country where the government can toss you in jail for saying something THEY deem as hate speech. Like yours.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?