Trump thinks it is illegal for people to say bad things about him

Author: HistoryBuff

Posts

Total: 138
Topic's author
#121
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
never said there was, nor did I ever say there weren't limits because lying is only illegal if it conflicts with someone else rights by falsely taking advantage of them.  All call to action/threat is not considered free speech.  This has been gone over many times at great length.
ok, so we both agree that there are limits to free speech and that is totally normal. so far so good. 


those are not consistent with the statement 
what? Those statements were "we try to control obscene or misleading content." and "I have never said i am fine with obscene content." those are entirely consistent.  In one I say we should control it. In the other I say i am not fine with obscene content. Those are the same thing. 

Are you even reading what I am saying? Because the things you respond with suggest you are not. 
#122
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
In one I say we should control it. In the other I say i am not fine with obscene content. Those are the same thing. 
they are consistent, but not consistent from someone who claims to care about free speech, that is what I'm pointing out.  Thought it was very obvious.

 I do believe people should be banned for intentionally spreading lies and misinformation. 

so circling back, you don't care about free speech or don't understand it, you only care about speech you agree with, obviously, and what you don't like (find obscene,misleading, whatever) should be censored/banned whatever, thus

free speech
“You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.




Topic's author
#123
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
they are consistent, but not consistent from someone who claims to care about free speech, that is what I'm pointing out.  Thought it was very obvious.
it was not. you are pretty unclear. But as we have both confirmed, there is no such thing as completely free speech. So saying you support free speech and also being clear on what limits you would put on free speech are in no way contrary positions. We both agree there need to be limits on free speech. You just want that limit to allow people to spread lies and misinformation that will get people killed and I believe we should not allow people to spread misinformation that will get people killed. 

so circling back, you don't care about free speech or don't understand it, you only care about speech you agree with, obviously, and what you don't like (find obscene,misleading, whatever) should be censored/banned whatever, thus
You seriously do not make sense. We both agree there are limits to free speech. But when I say what that limit should be, I must hate free speech. When you say what that limit should be then somehow that is different. So are you a hypocrite that believes that only you have the right to decide where that limit is, or are you so ideologically blinded that you can't see the hypocrisy of the argument you are making?
#124
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
again you don't understand free speech and the limits, why there are limits and how they are legal.

a call to action for violence is one example and is distinguished from speech that is protected, it has to be a clear and present danger



the glaring difference is you would further limit free speech arbitrarily and I would not, so for you to claim you care about free speech is rather laughable really.

lies and false speech is protected speech to your dismay, it if wasn't there wouldn't be any free speech unfortunately for you.



#125
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Is clear and present danger so different to the long term dangers of intentional misinformation and propaganda such  that one is entirely prohibited and the other isn't? Seems entirely arbitrary to me
#126
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Having a president saying that free speech should be illegal is rather disturbing though. 
As an alleged history expert, so knowledgeable regarding constitutional issues, such as the freedom of speech, you do know that a freedom such as that comes with limitations of responsibility, such as libel ad slander. Your freedom ends at the limit of the truth. You cannot say whatever the hell you want without embracing the consequences. Freedom is not, never was, and never will be free of responsibility. Be disturbed. That is your right, too. Be offended. But censure is not your proper response.
#127
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
of course it is, haven't you ever wanted to do or say something out of anger but after a time you decide against it?
misinformation can be accidental right?  who's responsibility is it to be informed and educated?  unless there was a way to censor the internet/social media misinformation is something that will always be.
there are prices to pay for freedoms, even stepping foot outside comes with a risk.
these things have been settled in the supreme courts for decades now.  Freedom of speech is probably  difficult to comprehend when you don't have it.  I can't really comprehend not having it.
#128
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The arbitrariness revolves around the crony exceptions to libel laws.
Topic's author
#129
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the glaring difference is you would further limit free speech arbitrarily and I would not, so for you to claim you care about free speech is rather laughable really.
no, arbitrary is making rules up at random or on a whim. Mine are very clear and logical. No demonstrable lies. It is very clear. It very easy to follow. There is nothing arbitrary about it. And why would we want misinformation which causes all kinds of pain, suffering and death to be protected? It doesn't make any sense. 

lies and false speech is protected speech to your dismay, it if wasn't there wouldn't be any free speech unfortunately for you.
lol if not being able to lie means you wouldn't be able to speak, then you may want to reevaluate how much you are lying. 

Topic's author
#130
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Be disturbed. That is your right, too. Be offended. But censure is not your proper response.
why? people are dying because of this shit? Why should there not be consequences for that? Like the people who constantly claim that vaccines cause autism when it has been proven over and over that they don't. People die because they didn't take a vaccine. The people spreading that misinformation are killing them. 

#131
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok go a head and define obscene, or better yet how and who gets to define it?
you do understand cops can lie, mislead etc to make arrests and solve crimes right? 

religion by some is considered a lie as are many other things people just have to believed.  businesses often mislead to some degree or another, history, literature, advertising.  So exactly how should this all be limited?

funny part is, what you are advocating for would make President Trump correct, you actually agree with the title of this thread, how ironic, do you feel dirty now that you are a Trump supporter LOL
Topic's author
#132
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
ok go a head and define obscene, or better yet how and who gets to define it?
in this context? The company making the software would decide what they consider obscene. If you disagree and what to post things they consider obscene, you are free to post somewhere else. 

you do understand cops can lie, mislead etc to make arrests and solve crimes right? 
im not advocating lies being punishable in public. I'm advocating lies as an attempt to mislead on the internet should be punished (ie banned). If you want to lie to your friends and family, go nuts. If you want to tell people vaccines cause autism online, you should be banned. 

religion by some is considered a lie as are many other things people just have to believed.
in order for it to be a lie, it has to be demonstrably false. Religion is designed to based on faith. Therefore you can't really disprove it. So it isn't a lie. 

businesses often mislead to some degree or another, history, literature, advertising.
this is already illegal. You can be sued for false advertising etc. 

funny part is, what you are advocating for would make President Trump correct, you actually agree with the title of this thread, how ironic, do you feel dirty now that you are a Trump supporter LOL
your comment makes no sense. I want companies to ban people for spreading misinformation. That would include misinformation about trump. Trump wants saying anything bad about him to be illegal. most of it happens to be true unfortunately. So what I want and what trump want are nothing alike. 
#133
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
 I'm advocating lies as an attempt to mislead on the internet should be punished (ie banned). 
or what?  their site be taken down if they don't enforce that?

I want companies to ban people for spreading misinformation.
you mean like fake news?  This type of censorship is beyond dangerous, rather reminiscent of George Orwell

Businesses would only do this for their own interested anyway just like creating fake news, this is why censorship is dangerous and anyone who supports it isn't pro free speech.

there are no more laws or censorship that is needed beyond what is already illegal because I care about free speech.

my understanding is that you would expand the laws, if that's not true please clarify because if that is true I can't see how you could say you care about free speech.

Topic's author
#134
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
or what?  their site be taken down if they don't enforce that?
i have no advocated for an enforcement mechanism. that's a separate discussion we could have. I would say fines for companies that allow misinformation to spread would probably work. 

you mean like fake news?  This type of censorship is beyond dangerous, rather reminiscent of George Orwell
no it isn't. We aren't talking about news we disagree with. We are talking about people pushing demonstrably false information. Like saying that vaccines cause autism, which they obviously don't. 

Businesses would only do this for their own interested anyway just like creating fake news, this is why censorship is dangerous and anyone who supports it isn't pro free speech.
lol you have already confirmed there is no such thing as free speech. You are fine with censoring things already. All we are talking about is changing which things we censor. So saying you can't be in favor of censoring things and also be pro-free speech makes no sense. Because by that logic almost no one is pro free speech, including you. 

there are no more laws or censorship that is needed beyond what is already illegal because I care about free speech.
you keep contradicting yourself. You are fine with some censorship laws, but insist you are pro free speech. I want slightly different censorship laws but for some reason that means I am not pro free speech. Do you not see the hypocrisy of what you are saying?

my understanding is that you would expand the laws, if that's not true please clarify because if that is true I can't see how you could say you care about free speech.
im saying that people spreading information that is demonstrably false should not be protected. We already do this for businesses. If they tell you their medication cures a disease and it doesn't, you can sue that business. But if an individual tells you that vaccines cause autism (which they don't), they are allowed to keep spreading that misinformation and get people killed. 

#135
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Like saying that vaccines cause autism, which they obviously don't. 
well that's interesting because many who claim that believe it, no malicious intent, but you'd punish and or silence them for potentially being wrong?  I'm not 100% that there is some extremely small chance vaccines could cause autism or something like autism.  Since we don't really know what causes autism (afaik) what makes anyone think we can rule out vaccines?

All we are talking about is changing which things we censor. 
right the old slippery slope, that which is legal is specific.  What you would expand what is obscene and false is arbitrary.

im saying that people spreading information that is demonstrably false should not be protected. 
so like the narrative that cops murder blacks at some false rate  which statistics show that's not true?

white privilege is proven demonstrably false, the poorest people live in Kentucky and are white.

a medication that cures a disease will prove itself true or false, the vaccine claim I don't believe can be proven false for the reasons above.

you also (generally speaking) have to prove harm, libel and defamation are prime examples of that.  If I say or write something about you that's false you have no case if you can't prove you were damaged/harmed, right? 

Topic's author
#136
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well that's interesting because many who claim that believe it, no malicious intent, but you'd punish and or silence them for potentially being wrong?
no, i would punish them for spreading misinformation. we could easily put in place a system that gives a warning. We could even put in place a system where that warning includes proof that what they are saying is incorrect. If they want to continue to spread the misinformation even after being told it is misinformation, then yes they should be banned. 

right the old slippery slope, that which is legal is specific.  What you would expand what is obscene and false is arbitrary.
you keep saying it is arbitrary, but by definition it isn't. I would ban people from spreading info that is demonstrably false. That isn't arbitrary at all. 

so like the narrative that cops murder blacks at some false rate  which statistics show that's not true?

white privilege is proven demonstrably false
if you think that is true, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. 

the poorest people live in Kentucky and are white.
what is your point? There are poor people from other ethnicities, so black people must not be targetted and harassed by the police? Do you think you are making sense?

a medication that cures a disease will prove itself true or false, the vaccine claim I don't believe can be proven false for the reasons above.
it has been proven false. there have been TONS of studies showing it to be false. There was 1 study showing it was true. that study was proven to be false. 

you also (generally speaking) have to prove harm, libel and defamation are prime examples of that.  If I say or write something about you that's false you have no case if you can't prove you were damaged/harmed, right? 
I'm not advocating for individuals to be sued. Although that could be something worth looking into. In this case I was saying platforms should ban people for doing these things. If they don't, then they could be fined. 

#137
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
People die because they didn't take a vaccine
That is their choice. The vaccine is not denied to them, typically, is it? Therefore, as you say, people die because they don't take a vaccine. But people die when they do, as well. Vaccines are not 100% effective, but that is nobody's fault. Death happens. Life ends, and, sometimes, you just don't have a body to hang for and because of it. Shyte happens, yeah? Get over it. 

92 days later

#138
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Having a president saying that free speech should be illegal is rather disturbing though. 
I agree, but Trump didn't say this.