Freedom of Speech takes a hit

[Jakezilla]

Thoughts on free speech and incitement of violence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spgNSXx_0No



"if any speech that can be tangentially connected to crime is banned, then any and all speech will be banned"

[JBen]

Who gets to define who terrorist are? Worded differently who gets to define what "hate" speech is? Who gets to decide what an essential item or service is?

With respect to Trump and the "riot" on Capital Hill. One thing to keep in mind is that he does have a history of inflammatory comments. See "proud boys" and more..
Four people died. Amongst other things. But that alone might suffice. Four dead people.
Who takes responsibility? Do we right wingers not always complain about the lack of accountability?

Will say/suggest one thing that does speak volumes is the number and rank of republicans and far right wing publications like Forbes. Resigning, and or in support of impeachment. Be all and end all? Nope, but it can't be ignored. And in the end, isn't that how freedom works?
https://www.facebook.com/HuffPost/po...59103530386130

If it were just Mitch McConnel, Trump supporters could say " Well he's just worried about the doners that are bailing and demanding refunds". It's not just McConnel. It's a lot people on the right........

that stuff, speaks to "incitement". The other matter, is even if he did. "Freedom of speech"

[Jakezilla]

Did you even watch the video? They are changing the meaning of incitement like they are changing the mean of "case" in relation to covid.

As far as

"Who gets to define who terrorist are? Worded differently who gets to define what "hate" speech is? Who gets to decide what an essential item or service is?"

Usually it's the people that you would least like to have that power.

[delmer]

I think I will wait for you to show me where all the election fraud evidence is at, so far just talk.

Stumbled upon this on YouTube. Wasn't looking for it, it just showed up as a clip while watching something else. Legitimate findings? You decide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2mH9X4jQT8&t=366s

Also, in the paper today, a column by Lorne Gunter about banning users on social media. From the column:

...Twitter and the others don’t have to justify the exclusions of people or ideas. As private entities, they are free to associate with whomever they choose. Don’t like Facebook’s arbitrary decisions? Go somewhere else. Or maybe start your own social media service. Censorship is the act of shutting you up completely. Of making it illegal even to say what you think. That is not the same as an individual or company refusing to help you spread your message.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...eech-isnt-easy

[fishermccann]

I agree with Gunter on this point. Truth.....

[Jakezilla]

If we take a close look at the social media platforms we need to discuss the platform vs publisher debate. They act like a publisher but also hide behind the protections given to platforms in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-...es-everything/

As far as Twitter or Facebook being private companies and "they can do what they want". So if private businesses can do what they want then can they ban LGBTQ or certain races from their stores?

[delmer]

As far as Twitter or Facebook being private companies and "they can do what they want". So if private businesses can do what they want then can they ban LGBTQ or certain races from their stores?

I believe banning someone from social media does not infringe upon someone's right to free speech. They can still voice their opinion, just not on certain social media sites. On the other hand, for a private company to ban someone based upon their race, colour, creed, sexual orientation, etc., is a direct human rights violation. There is no gray area in that case.

[trimmer21]

If we take a close look at the social media platforms we need to discuss the platform vs publisher debate. They act like a publisher but also hide behind the protections given to platforms in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-...es-everything/

As far as Twitter or Facebook being private companies and "they can do what they want". So if private businesses can do what they want then can they ban LGBTQ or certain races from their stores?

YEP!! They can ban whoever they like,unfettered.

[onelessarrow]

Big Tech promised just last year to Congress, that they would never remove any statesmen or statewomen from their platform, a pretext to allow real dictators freedom to use.
People are currently being removed for political orientation.

[Jakezilla]

I believe banning someone from social media does not infringe upon someone's right to free speech. They can still voice their opinion, just not on certain social media sites. On the other hand, for a private company to ban someone based upon their race, colour, creed, sexual orientation, etc., is a direct human rights violation. There is no gray area in that case.

So now we are back to the publisher vs platform arguement.

Surely they could be sued by someone for claiming they were banned based on one of things protected under anti discrimination laws. So they act like a private business but hide behind platform protection from Section 230.