Freedom of Speech

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Don Jr when asked about Trump’s new social media site Truth Social:

“What we are trying to do is create a big tent, an open and free network for people to be able to assert your First Amendment rights”

Yet rule #23 of the site’s terms of service states that its users may not:

“23.  disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site”

Can we all just agree that freedom of speech is a nonsense issue and that when people rail against attacks on free speech in today’s culture they are full of crap?
#2
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Can we all just agree that freedom of speech is a nonsense issue and that when people rail against attacks on free speech in today’s culture they are full of crap?
I don't necessarily agree that in general it's a nonsense issue full stop, that's a little broad for me. But I do find that when people are railing against it, what they mean in general is they want the right to be assholes in some form or fashion but do NOT want to face any civil consequence for it. Like they want to have racist or bigoted views, but do not want anyone to dislike them for it, or don't want to face reduced business or any sort of ostracization stemming from it. I'm fully in support of a private business owner being within his rights to post a "I don't like X PEOPLE and will not do business with them" on the door of his sandwich shop or whatever, but I'm also fully in support of that guy's community collectively boycotting his business as a result. 

Also most of the time freedom of speech issues are people getting mad at PRIVATE BUSINESSES limiting your speech. 1A only guarantees the government won't do it.  It in no way guarantees that you can post racist rants on twitter. 
#3
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Your conclusion doesn’t follow your anecdotal setup. *scratching my head*…
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
They don't have to go home but they can't stay there.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
 Like they want to have racist or bigoted views, but do not want anyone to dislike them for it.
When school board members shut the mics off of protesters of CRT, that was much more of a violation of government authority over public discussion than an instance of a private company protecting itself from saboteurs.

The government should fear the people, not the other way around.
#6
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
When school board members shut the mics off of protesters of CRT, that was much more of a violation of government authority over public discussion than an instance of a private company protecting itself from saboteurs.
Can you link me to this? Just as a point of fact, those meetings often have points of order and time limits on speech from the crowd, you're not allowed an unlimited time and generally have to stay on topic. I've seen plenty of footage of bizarre rants at public hearings, most of the time speech is cut off when not relevant to the topic at hand or when time expires. 
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
I know  of a few clips I had seen where a woman's time was cut short because the board member kept talking over her instead of letting her speak. They didn't cut the mic before the time allotted though, sorry if that was unclear. They did shut her mic off when she asked for her time back.
#8
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
That sounds to me more like keeping the order of the hearing, not like Big Brother coming down on a dissenting opinion, but without something to look at myself, it's hard to say for sure. If she felt her civil liberties were violated, she has plenty of remedies to pursue it. Order in these public hearings is necessary, and adherence to rules as well, to make sure that all the speakers have a reasonable chance to be heard. For example, let's say you went to protest CRT, and the person in front of you stood up there talking about a pending alien invasion, and all the evidence he has to back it up. Is the committee or hearing board violating his civil rights by telling him that's not what they're talking about and taking away his time, shutting his mic off? My point is there are situational limits on all speech and expression. Go stand in the street and protest or talk about aliens, if that's not what's on the docket. 
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
I'll have to find the clip, the Board member didn't like what was being said so she took some of the allotted time away by talking over her.

It might be a minor thing, but it's not a good look for public discourse when you are promised x amount of time to talk and they take it away.
#10
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
While Greyparrot lectures others on free speech let's recall that Greyparrot has a mod ban on me replying to any of his posts. 

  • The second most prolific poster on this site but I'm not allowed to reply to anything he posts
  • Greyparrot feels no shame about replying to my posts (mostly lies, often outright insults)  while demanding that I not respond
  • The literal opposite of a debater
By this and similar action, Greyparrot demonstrates his contempt for truly free speech.  When Greyparrot says "free speech"  readers should be sure to note he always and only means "free speech for fascists"


#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lol stop begging for validation Oro.

You won't get it from me .
#14
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Also most of the time freedom of speech issues are people getting mad at PRIVATE BUSINESSES limiting your speech. 1A only guarantees the government won't do it.  It in no way guarantees that you can post racist rants on twitter. 
You are correct technically and Constitutionally— you cannot be punished by the government for protected speech. The issue today is more one of our culture and the power of corporations and institutions to coerce people into limiting their speech. As Dave Chapelle said, “You take away a man’s job, you take away his life!”

Sure, people don’t want openly bigoted people in their workplace. The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago. For example, is it bigoted to opine that you want better border security, and if so, should you get fired for that?

Eventually, people will be afraid to talk openly about anything, and they will simply cluster together in like-minded groups and echo chambers, where tribalism, division and de facto segregation will markedly increase— the exact opposite of what these cultural limitations on speech are trying to achieve!



Topic's author
#15
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Your conclusion doesn’t follow your anecdotal setup. *scratching my head*…
It’s not a syllogism, I’m just giving the latest example.

Almost every example in recent months regarding freedom of speech is just as absurd, whether we’re talking about Twitter enforcing it’s ToS against Trump or cancel culture. The point is that this popularized pro freedom of speech rhetoric is really just advocacy of one’s right to say whatever they want without any consequence from society. That’s not how it works.
#16
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
TRUMP's SOCIAL NETWORK has 20 DAYS to STOP BREAKING the RULES of its SOFTWARE LICENSE
Truth Social ripped off open-source platform Mastodon
By Adi Robertson@thedextriarchy  Oct 22, 2021, 12:27pm EDT

The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) says former President Donald Trump’s new social network violated a free and open-source software licensing agreement by ripping off decentralized social network Mastodon. The Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) has 30 days to comply with the terms of the license before its access is terminated — forcing it to rebuild the platform or face legal action.

TMTG launched a special purpose acquisition company fundraising effort yesterday with promises to build a sweeping media empire. Its only product so far is a social network called Truth Social that appears strongly to be forked from Mastodon. While anyone can freely reuse Mastodon’s code (and groups like right-wing social network Gab have already done so), they still have to comply with the Affero General Public License (or AGPLv3) that governs that code, and its conditions include offering their own source code to all users.

Truth Social doesn’t comply with that license and, in fact, refers to its service as “proprietary.” Its developers apparently attempted to scrub references that would make the Mastodon connection clear — at one point listing a “sighting” of the Mastodon logo as a bug — but included direct references to Mastodon in the site’s underlying HTML alongside obvious visual similarities.

TMTG’s strategy hasn’t sat well with the SFC, an organization that enforces free and open-source software licenses. “The license purposefully treats everyone equally (even people we don’t like or agree with), but they must operate under the same rules of the copyleft licenses that apply to everyone else,” SFC policy fellow Bradley Kuhn wrote in a blog post. “Today, we saw the Trump Media and Technology Group ignoring those important rules — which were designed for the social good.”

Truth Social hasn’t officially launched. But users could access a test version of the platform, where many of them created prank accounts that flooded the service with false company announcements and even fake Donald Trump posts. (The platform has since been replaced by a waitlist.) The SFC demands that TMTG offer all these users access to the Truth Social source code. “If they fail to do this within 30 days, their rights and permissions in the software are automatically and permanently terminated,” Kuhn says.

If Truth Social fails to make the source code available, the SFC could sue it for violating the terms of the license it used. Earlier this year, the group sued electronics maker Vizio for “repeated failures to fulfill even the basic requirements” of free software licensing. “We will be following this issue very closely and demanding that Trump’s Group give the corresponding source to all who use the site,” Kuhn writes.

Mastodon founder Eugen Rochko also said yesterday that he intended to seek legal counsel about the situation, although he didn’t discuss a specific course of action. “Compliance with our AGPLv3 license is very important to me as that is the sole basis upon which I and other developers are willing to give away years of work for free,” he told Talking Points Memo.

#17
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@cristo71
Ok, but that's not first amendment concerns. That's shifting in culture tolerance, which is not and should not be subject to legislation. 

For example, is it bigoted to opine that you want better border security, and if so, should you get fired for that?
Depends on the argument. If the argument is really about national security (i.e. a group of organized terrorists or a drug cartel crossing the border with impugnity), and that's the argument you make, it's different than the fig leaf that this issue often is, where pundits say things like "THEY are coming to replace US." It's a fundamental misunderstanding of immigration, the promise that makes this country the best one on earth even if it isn't perfect, and it's about oligarchy. The bottom line is if your political ideas don't appeal to the majority of voters, the problem isn't the voters, it's your ideas, in a democracy (and again, that's not me saying we have democracy perfected by any means). And I'm not accusing you of one or the other, but the fact that people see through those pseudo-intellectual fronts more now than in years past is PROGRESS. 

Eventually, people will be afraid to talk openly about anything, and they will simply cluster together in like-minded groups and echo chambers, where tribalism, division and de facto segregation will markedly increase— the exact opposite of what these cultural limitations on speech are trying to achieve!
So...racists will be afraid to be racists openly? Yeah, I'm willing to allow that. Sorry, the solution is to quit being a racist if you don't want to be ostracized. People being afraid to talk openly is also not a government issue, that's a cowardice issue. If you believe in your principles, stand up and be proud to announce them, and damn the torpedoes, right? 

However, staff at MIT realized that he once opined against affirmative action, so they cancelled his appearance. Politicization of science, anyone?
No one has a constitutional right to speak at MIT. I disagree that it's politicization of science. It's politicization of who speaks at their institution. Politicization of science is, in my view, the correlation between voting trends and adherence to covid science, for example. 
#18
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
It’s not a syllogism, I’m just giving the latest example. 
Ah, I see.

Almost every example in recent months regarding freedom of speech is just as absurd, whether we’re talking about Twitter enforcing it’s ToS against Trump or cancel culture. The point is that this popularized pro freedom of speech rhetoric is really just advocacy of one’s right to say whatever they want without any consequence from society. That’s not how it works.
Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.


Topic's author
#19
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Ok, but that's not first amendment concerns. That's shifting in culture tolerance, which is not and should not be subject to legislation. 
Exactly. It never ceases to amaze me how the same who claim to be advocating for freedom of speech are actually arguing against it.

If you say something and other people stand up to it, fighting back against their right to do so it is fighting for the removal of their freedom of speech.
Topic's author
#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.
Then fight back against their influence with valid arguments, don’t pretend your constitutional rights are being violated.

Speaking generally of course.

I agree that cancel culture and the woke left have gone overboard. But this whole freedom of speech thing seems like a mindless reflexive reaction and/or childish obstinance rather than a movement.
#21
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Depends on the argument. If the argument is really about national security (i.e. a group of organized terrorists or a drug cartel crossing the border with impugnity), and that's the argument you make, it's different than the fig leaf that this issue often is, where pundits say things like "THEY are coming to replace US." It's a fundamental misunderstanding of immigration, the promise that makes this country the best one on earth even if it isn't perfect, and it's about oligarchy. The bottom line is if your political ideas don't appeal to the majority of voters, the problem isn't the voters, it's your ideas, in a democracy (and again, that's not me saying we have democracy perfected by any means). And I'm not accusing you of one or the other, but the fact that people see through those pseudo-intellectual fronts more now than in years past is PROGRESS.
Yikes… you actually would *consider* firing someone over a widely held national policy opinion?

And you left out THE most important point in my response:

“The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago.”

But I see now that you are AOK with that ever expanding strike zone. It “is PROGRESS,” as you said…
#22
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
Recently, a guest speaker who is a renowned scientist was scheduled to speak at MIT… regarding sciency stuff. However, staff at MIT realized that he once opined against affirmative action, so they cancelled his appearance. Politicization of science, anyone?
Not a First Amendment issue, except to the extent that MIT receives significant Govt funds.

I agree that the cancellation of Dorian Abbot for the John Carlson Lecture is an outrage and MIT absolutely made the wrong call.

Students can  object to Abbot's recent Newsweek op/ed preferring equality of opportunity over equality of outcome but MIT decision-makers have a real academic and democratic obligation to present, promote, and protect such lectures in the name of a liberal education.  

MIT should sponsor some lectures on the necessity of liberalism to academic rigor, apologize to Abbot and offer to host the lecture again.  MIT should allow students to protest but not at the expense of Abbot's welcome or capacity to fully express his opinion.  
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
“The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago.”

It's not an Overton window anymore...its a gigantic one-way door...

#24
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@cristo71
Yikes… you actually would *consider* firing someone over a widely held national policy opinion?


Yes, if I thought it would or could negatively impact my business, I'd certainly consider it. That's capitalism, no? I'm within my rights, as are they. We're private citizens. 

And you left out THE most important point in my response:

“The problem is that the strike zone for what is bigoted today is waaay larger than it was even 10 years ago.”

But I see now that you are AOK with that ever expanding strike zone. It “is PROGRESS,” as you said…
I don't think I left it out. And who gets to define bigotry? Isn't the answer society? What's your idea for progressing towards the more perfect union laid out in the Constitution if it isn't allowing society at large to decide what's tolerable versus what isn't?
#25
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
My dean is high school was actually Bobby Seale's younger sister.  She made a point of inviting Ku Klux Klan members to speak in public assembly every year I attended.  Student participation was voluntary but Seale encouraged students to attend and listen to what the Klan had to say- not in the name of White Supremacy but in the name of liberal thought.  Every year, crowds of students from other high schools would come and protest but the speakers were carefully protected from those protests.

That is how I was taught free speech in America.  I think it would be a shame if the practice of competitive virtue signaling in the name of Liberalism actually truncated our capacity to speak, listen, and think about any idea, no matter how wrong-headed or controversial.
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Any functioning society has to be founded on some form of bigoted laws, customs or cultures.

For example, bigoted people won't tolerate rape on trains or burning women in the street for showing their face.

Bigotry has gotten a really bad rap lately in the media, but it's actually the cornerstone of every nation. After all, isn't EVERY law on the books bigoted in some way (intolerant) toward a specific behavior or action?

I usually view most people who claim to be tolerant and "not bigoted" to be mostly full of crap and virtue signaling, because there's a line you can push anyone over no matter who they are or where they are from.
#27
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@ludofl3x
I’ll just reiterate this sentiment of mine:

“Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.”
#28
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
I’ll just reiterate this sentiment of mine:

“Thing is, it’s not simply our society at large creating the consequences; it is the most vocal, the most over-sensitive elements of our society trying hardest to silence speech they disagree with. Those who have been bullied are now becoming bullies themselves, which doesn’t solve problems; it merely trades one problem for another.”
Yeah, I read it, I'm not sure it's anything to respond to, short of saying it sounds like a soft complaint that the shoe's now on the other foot, but I don't want to draw a hard conclusion based on whatever this is. If those vocal and sensitive elements represent the majority view,  just represent it louder than most, would your view be "I'll abide by these new unwritten rules?"    
#29
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
“23.  disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site”
So if you complain about Twitter on Twitter, you get banned from it?  Doesn't seem ideal.
Topic's author
#30
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Twitter doesn’t have any such rule, which is quite ironic considering they’re not the ones claiming to be the champions of free speech