KUGRDON Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 The squad and other liberals don’t know the meaning of civil liberties. It is one of the ironies of the age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected free speech, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true. [wikipedia] Quote Of course, reasonable minds can disagree on what is false in politics. Of course, reasonable minds should also admit that some statements are just plain false. Unless they’re just pretending to be reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 26, 2019 Author Share Posted October 26, 2019 Shouting fire in a theater causes an immediate risk of physical injury. Name the analogous example on social media. That comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech. It is not the falseness of the communication that renders it subject to regulation it is the immediacy and seriousness of the irreversible harm caused thereby coupled with the inability of contemporaneous communication to prevent the harm. Freedom of speech is based upon the populist belief that the common man can discern truth from lies in a free market place of ideas. Censorship necessarily follows the elitist belief that the common man is a fool who must be protected from that information which the elites deem dangerous or false. As an aside, I find it encouraging that it is the young and more adept at using and evaluating social media who are more likely to identify and expose falsehoods and hoaxes. It is the older who have been trained to accept spoon-feeding by corporate media and political elites who are more easily misled. A free marketplace of ideas is a better training ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 2 hours ago, KUGRDON said: Shouting fire in a theater causes an immediate risk of physical injury. Name the analogous example on social media. The idea is that the banned speech has to be a clear & present danger to the public or government, later narrowed to “incite an imminent lawless action”. Like election & campaign finance laws. The entire history of our country has been a pendulum swing over this issue. Of course, you need to keep an eye on it, but I feel okay ‘restricting’ the civil rights of liars trying to knowingly manipulate/mislead the public — just like we do with those making fake medicine claims or giving shady financial advice. This whole “who can tell what is true — it’s unknowable” stuff is complete bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 26, 2019 Author Share Posted October 26, 2019 You express your point well. I disagree. I think your point breaks down at the examination of the imminence of the danger and the threat of irreversible harm. We have many mechanisms to deal with the harm caused by falsehood, we are seeing them at work now. I have faith in freedom more than in elitist judges of truth and falsehood who often don’t agree with each other and who have economic and/or ideological interests at stake. Can we agree on “truth” in a political context? Query, which, if any, are lies: 1. Hillary implied that Gabbard is a Russian asset. 2. Gabbard is a Russian asset. 3. Democrats want to take our guns away. 4. Republicans care about the poor. 5. Republicans are the enemies of Hispanic Americans? 6. Authorizing Libra is in the public interest. 7. Michael Brown was murdered by a white cop. (Liberal fact checkers varied from partly true to four pinnochios). 8. Democrats want it to be legal to kill human beings in early stages of development. 9. Republicans oppose immigration. No, we can’t. Do you trust Zuckerberg to be an arbiter of truth? Much better to educate the social media user on how to bias check sources, cross check, multiple source and verify than to trust elites. Kids do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 Interesting thread. It could be argued that those tech giants from Silicon Valley are leading the way in trying to control what we see online & have too much power and the GOP & DNC are in agreement that it's time to rein in Silicon Valley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 On 10/26/2019 at 4:01 PM, KUGRDON said: You express your point well. I disagree. I think your point breaks down at the examination of the imminence of the danger and the threat of irreversible harm. We have many mechanisms to deal with the harm caused by falsehood, we are seeing them at work now. I have faith in freedom more than in elitist judges of truth and falsehood who often don’t agree with each other and who have economic and/or ideological interests at stake. Can we agree on “truth” in a political context? Query, which, if any, are lies: 1. Hillary implied that Gabbard is a Russian asset. 2. Gabbard is a Russian asset. 3. Democrats want to take our guns away. 4. Republicans care about the poor. 5. Republicans are the enemies of Hispanic Americans? 6. Authorizing Libra is in the public interest. 7. Michael Brown was murdered by a white cop. (Liberal fact checkers varied from partly true to four pinnochios). 8. Democrats want it to be legal to kill human beings in early stages of development. 9. Republicans oppose immigration. No, we can’t. Do you trust Zuckerberg to be an arbiter of truth? Much better to educate the social media user on how to bias check sources, cross check, multiple source and verify than to trust elites. Kids do it. If Tylenol decides to run ads on Facebook, targeting the old, feeble-minded members of your generation with claims that they cure cancer better than chemo, Fuckerberg should just allow it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruin 70 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 If the democraps dislike facebook the clones follow. The squad is a pathetic disgrace to this country. AOC's biggest complaint she could not see her face in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 4 hours ago, Bruin 70 said: If the democraps dislike facebook the clones follow. The squad is a pathetic disgrace to this country. AOC's biggest complaint she could not see her face in it. Facebook is the single reason morons like you believe Trump is an intelligent, rich, competent leader. So yeah, facebook can go fuck itself. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you uploaded the same low-angle selfie of your old-ass for your FB profile photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 On 10/28/2019 at 8:56 AM, Orange said: If Tylenol decides to run ads on Facebook, targeting the old, feeble-minded members of your generation with claims that they cure cancer better than chemo, Fuckerberg should just allow it? Are you really a lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruin 70 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Orange said: Facebook is the single reason morons like you believe Trump is an intelligent, rich, competent leader. So yeah, facebook can go fuck itself. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you uploaded the same low-angle selfie of your old-ass for your FB profile photo? At least my picture is not in every post office as a deranged dangerous person to be avoided at all costs. KC fails again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruin 70 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 45 minutes ago, KUGRDON said: Are you really a lawyer? Really after all this time you ask that? He is no more a lawyer than a car wash employee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 54 minutes ago, KUGRDON said: Are you really a lawyer? Just answer the question, you stupid asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, Bruin 70 said: Really after all this time you ask that? He is no more a lawyer than a car wash employee. You've obviously inhaled WAYYYYYY too much Freon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, Orange said: Just answer the question, you stupid asshole. Lol, it’s so stupid and contrary to established law that it deserves no response Dumbfuck. I’m not here to teach fundamental constitutional law to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruin 70 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, Orange said: You've obviously inhaled WAYYYYYY too much Freon. Not enough to believe your BS KC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 20 minutes ago, KUGRDON said: Lol, it’s so stupid and contrary to established law that it deserves no response Dumbfuck. I’m not here to teach fundamental constitutional law to you. You don't seem to understand the first thing about any kind of law, dumbfuck. My rhetorical question has NOTHING to do with FDA rules, it has to do with ethical rules that quasi-governmental-in-size social media outlets ought to follow in the new information economy. But go ahead and run away from the convo when you're exposed, as usual, you fat fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruin 70 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, Orange said: You don't seem to understand the first thing about any kind of law, dumbfuck. My rhetorical question has NOTHING to do with FDA rules, it has to do with ethical rules that quasi-governmental-in-size social media outlets ought to follow in the new information economy. But go ahead and run away from the convo when you're exposed, as usual, you fat fuck. Name calling and death wishes. So mature KC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 26 minutes ago, Orange said: You don't seem to understand the first thing about any kind of law, dumbfuck. My rhetorical question has NOTHING to do with FDA rules, it has to do with ethical rules that quasi-governmental-in-size social media outlets ought to follow in the new information economy. But go ahead and run away from the convo when you're exposed, as usual, you fat fuck. Does “rhetorical” now mean facetious, stupid, irrelevant, uninformed, ignorant, dumbfuckery? Take you pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, KUGRDON said: Does “rhetorical” now mean facetious, stupid, irrelevant, uninformed, ignorant, dumbfuckery? Take you pick. What's irrelevant about Facebook's policy of allowing lies (read; Foreign governments supporting Trump) to be broadcast ad nauseum on their platform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.