Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
US Senator Championing Censorship
#1
The context is the Senate 230 hearing with Facebook, Google, and Twitter this week. The discussion is between Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D, WI). The tenor of the hearing at this point was Big Tech and their role in deciding what gets posted and what gets hidden. SEN Baldwin opens up with:

"I believe the tech companies here today need to take more action, not less, to combat misinformation. Including misinformation on the election, misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic, and misinformation and posts meant to incite violence."   

I find this astonishing. Amazing. Confusing. Chilling. We have a sitting US Senator actually telling private companies they need to censor people online MORE. She is cheerleading for private entities to basically contract out silencing her opposition. The Blackwater of expression let's say. To silence that with which she disagrees. If she disagrees with you, well it's fine for an unaccountable corporation to shut you out. 

There is always the argument these are private companies. They can show or hide what they want. Nope. Not under Section 230 protection can they do that. The whole point of the hearing. Big Tech wants their cash cows to remain a litigation free zone. But it seems they want to play social administrator too. 

There are some who argue this is just online, on a few platforms. No one is stopping you from using less used platforms online or not be online at all. To that I offer, what makes you believe this is where it stops? Since when has government reach, once acquiesced, ever receded? When has a bureaucracy ever decided it needs less authority? 

I can be 100% sure who I am NOT voting for when time comes up. 
 



Reply
#2
One of the first adages my Mother taught me from childhood was, "Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see."

That has changed to "Believe none of what you hear, and none of what you see."

Most people today take everything they believe, to be gospel and cut in stone. The only truth is their truth,  everything else is just hyperbole or a lie. So let everyone have their say. People are going to believe what they want to believe. The fact that they are likely to accept the lie rather than to entertain the truth, will not change with censorship. Most of us are often fully and solely responsible for our own choice of deceptions.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=8192]




Reply
#3
Censorship is a tool used by cowards and tyrants. . . but I repeat myself.
Today I voted for Hope, she wasn't on the ballot so I had to write her in.
Reply
#4
Twitter, Face Book, and You Tube are about to go the way of the doe-doe bird.


[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-KYy...f=1&nofb=1]

Everyone is going to other "free speech" platforms. People are building their own websites and giving the middle finger to the big tech overlords, and I couldn't be happier.
I think it will be glorious when they sink with their ship.
Reply
#5
The good senator Baldwin is simply telling us that we are too child-like, and so of course we are unable to think for ourselves or assess information to come to our own conclusions. Therefore, we really need some good stalwart Marxists to do our thinking for us, and bring us to the proper and true conclusions.

She's just looking out for us innocent folks, unschooled in the ways of the world...

.
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” ― Ernest Hemingway

"It's the hillbilly way. We kill people and burn their shit down." -- Jim Powell, in "Blood and Banjos" by Franklin Horton




Reply
#6
(10-30-2020, 12:26 AM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Twitter, Face Book, and You Tube are about to go the way of the doe-doe bird.


[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-KYy...f=1&nofb=1]

Everyone is going to other "free speech" platforms. People are building their own websites and giving the middle finger to the big tech overlords, and I couldn't be happier.
I think it will be glorious when they sink with their ship.


A Second Amendment Facebook group ("State to State Second Amendment Awareness") sent me a message that they are moving to "MeWe" over this uncalled for censorship, and that I should join them there. Now, I've had a MeWe account for quite some time, but have no idea how to use it. For example, I cannot find that group to save my ass. So I'm kinda lost in the shuffle.

On the positive side, I understand that MeWe is growing in leaps and bounds with folks bailing out of the censored Left Wing social media, like rats deserting a sinking ship.

Maybe MeWe will put up some kind of tutorial, hopefully written rather than video so I can follow it, on how to use their service...

.
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” ― Ernest Hemingway

"It's the hillbilly way. We kill people and burn their shit down." -- Jim Powell, in "Blood and Banjos" by Franklin Horton




Reply
#7
(10-30-2020, 04:49 AM)Ninurta Wrote: On the positive side, I understand that MeWe is growing in leaps and bounds with folks bailing out of the censored Left Wing social media, like rats deserting a sinking ship.

Maybe MeWe will put up some kind of tutorial, hopefully written rather than video so I can follow it, on how to use their service...

.

I had never heard of MeWe. It sounds interesting,  but I don't know how they're going to prevent bullying and hate speech, without censorship.

https://mewe.com/faq
Quote:The Politics of MeWe

Unlike other social networks, at MeWe we have absolutely no political agenda and no one can pay us to target you with theirs. MeWe is for law-abiding and TOS-abiding people everywhere in the world, regardless of political, ethnic, religious, sexual, and other preferences. We have a strict and clear Terms of Service protecting our members: haters, bullies, porn, spammers, bots, lawbreakers, violence inciters, etc. are prohibited.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=8192]




Reply
#8
(10-30-2020, 05:15 AM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: I had never heard of MeWe. It sounds interesting,  but I don't know how they're going to prevent bullying and hate speech, without censorship.

https://mewe.com/faq
Quote:The Politics of MeWe

Unlike other social networks, at MeWe we have absolutely no political agenda and no one can pay us to target you with theirs. MeWe is for law-abiding and TOS-abiding people everywhere in the world, regardless of political, ethnic, religious, sexual, and other preferences. We have a strict and clear Terms of Service protecting our members: haters, bullies, porn, spammers, bots, lawbreakers, violence inciters, etc. are prohibited.

They don't. That's the beauty of free speech - it's free. If it's not illegal speech, it's good to go.

.
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” ― Ernest Hemingway

"It's the hillbilly way. We kill people and burn their shit down." -- Jim Powell, in "Blood and Banjos" by Franklin Horton




Reply
#9
(10-30-2020, 06:03 AM)Ninurta Wrote: NightskyeB4Dawn
https://mewe.com/faq
Quote:The Politics of MeWe

Unlike other social networks, at MeWe we have absolutely no political agenda and no one can pay us to target you with theirs. MeWe is for law-abiding and TOS-abiding people everywhere in the world, regardless of political, ethnic, religious, sexual, and other preferences. We have a strict and clear Terms of Service protecting our members: haters, bullies, porn, spammers, bots, lawbreakers, violence inciters, etc. are prohibited.

They don't. That's the beauty of free speech - it's free. If it's not illegal speech, it's good to go.
.

How are they going to prohibit haters, bullies, and the like without censorship?  If they get to decide what is illegal speech or hate speech, then wouldn't they be guilty of censorship? 

I am just asking a question because I am confused by how things are lauded when it comes out of the mouths of one, and vilified when it comes out of the mouth of another.  

How did everything become so polarized that we can't even agree on what is normal or acceptable speech? Is this the foundation for the birth of newspeak?

No excuses for those that have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=8192]




Reply
#10
Taliban Jack will be happy to censor those using his "service".

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen
Reply
#11
Here's a thought... free speech is kind of like that Greek thingie, what'sit called...?  mmmhhh it don't come to mind but even it is a contradiction. That's what we are dealing with, contradictions. Free Speech means you can say anything. It does not protect you if others take exception and become hostile towards you. Then barring bodyguards or police or some sort of protectors, your free speech becomes indeed free but with consequence.

We have raised an idle generation who have criticized and examined every bit of minutia looking for the slightest emotional reason to be .....'Offended" 

That has become such a basardized word, much like many words that as of late have had their meanings twisted and warped, slanged and hijacked.  Oh what's that Greek word, it's a mindset......


These days, dredging up vocabulary from my mental library sometimes stalls.... forgive me... aaah anyway say what you will.... literally...... but if your raw and vitriolic, you might get punched in the mouth or armpit and sent into next week. That is Free Speech. That word, still can't think of it, it's a type pf government.........anybody ?
Reply
#12
Ahhh it's Sunday and I remembered the term.... UTOPIA   like I said a contradiction in it's strictest definition
Reply
#13
This article on the American Bar Association web site, pretty much puts the while thing in focus.

Quote:Freedom of speech, Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo declared more than 80 years ago, “is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” Countless other justices, commentators, philosophers, and more have waxed eloquent for decades over the critically important role that freedom of speech plays in promoting and maintaining democracy.

Yet 227 years after the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified  in 1791 as the Bill of Rights, debate continues about the meaning of freedom of speech and its First Amendment companion, freedom of the press.
This issue of Human Rights explores contemporary issues, controversies, and court rulings about freedom of speech and press. This is not meant to be a comprehensive survey of First Amendment developments, but rather a smorgasbord of interesting issues.
One point of regular debate is whether there is a free speech breaking point, a line at which the hateful or harmful or controversial nature of speech should cause it to lose constitutional protection under the First Amendment. As longtime law professor, free speech advocate, author, and former American Civil Liberties Union national president Nadine Strossen notes in her article, there has long been a dichotomy in public opinion about free speech. Surveys traditionally show that the American people have strong support for free speech in general, but that number decreases when the poll focuses on particular forms of controversial speech.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/...ee-speech/

We slip into our confirmation bias when it comes to controversial speech.

Yet our support for our right to free speech remains strong, that is until a person disagrees, then they want the offending speaker to just shut up, by any means deemed neccessary.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=8192]




Reply
#14
Just my opinion here, but I think the line between "free speech" and "not free speech" should be drawn at provable and intentional prevarication, such as libel. Opinion, however "hateful" it may be found to be by this individual or that one would not fall under that heading, as opinion cannot be proven wrong - it's an opinion.

BUT - speech that is demonstrably false objectively, and injurious - something like the provernial shouting of FIRE! in a crowded theater when there is no fire present, and which could lead to a stampede based upon false statement of "fact", would then not be "free speech".

Examples:

"Hunter Biden is a crack head" - statement of "fact" which, if supporting evidence can be produced, would be protected. Libelous if no evidence can be produced, and then not protected. 


"I think Hunter Biden acts like a crack head" - statement of opinion. Also protected.


"Hunter Biden was abducted by aliens" - Statement of "fact" Not protected unless evidence can be produced, but not really libelous, either, since Mr. Biden is not injured by a belief that aliens may have abducted him. Not protected speech, but not really actionable, either.

"Hunter Biden has a big nose" - Subjective rather than objective, and therefore opinion rather than a statement of fact.

"Hunter Biden has a nose that is over 3 inches long" - Statement of "fact" that can be validated or refuted with objective evidence. 

"It looks to me like Hunter Biden's nose must be over 3 inches long" - Subjective statement of opinion.

Incitement to riot - A touchy subject, and probably the stickiest one. If what the individual says is true, and it provokes a riot because it is, is that really not protected speech? Are there times people SHOULD riot and revolt? Remember, the US was created by a revolution sparked by incendiary speech...

.
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” ― Ernest Hemingway

"It's the hillbilly way. We kill people and burn their shit down." -- Jim Powell, in "Blood and Banjos" by Franklin Horton




Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)