Biden administration wants to incorporate bans on all social media

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by Joe knows, Jul 16, 2021.

  1. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    13,465
    Likes Received:
    9,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think this is our government actively attacking the freedom of speech. I think social media has become such an organizational tool for protests, events, and politics that it should be a form of speech that’s protected under the first amendment from bans for speech. Biden feels differently. He believes if you’re banned on one platform you should be banned on all platforms.

    many will argue that it’s a private company. I somewhat understand that argument, however this is forcing one private company to ban based on another’s standards. Secondly I feel banning for speech is a violation of our civil rights. If that speech is so wrong it should be easily proven to be false without bans. What is so scary about someone’s right to speech? What are they going to say that’s so un-rebuttable that you must fear their presence? if they don’t make sense then there is nothing to fear… Right?

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/white-house-facebook-vaccine-misinformation
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  2. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Were you anywhere on the planet on January 6, 2021?
    If so, did you have access to any kind of electronic device like a Smart phone, laptop, desktop, television, tablet, radio, any of that?
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2021
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Being a staunch 1st Amendment supporter, while recognizing that FB and the others are run by private companies, it seems to me that those companies should allow speech that they deem to be misinformation, but they could prominently tag it.

    “This post contains misinformation”, with a “See why” button. Click on it, and read the rebuttal to the information in the post.

    By doing that, the spirit of the 1A is preserved, while rebutting the questionable information.
     
    Wynn Sayer likes this.
  4. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The legal argument for that would be to show a nexus between the band-width government manages and auctions off and those social media platforms.

    Free Speech is very similar to the Free Market.

    The "Free" in Free Market does not mean freedom to misrepresent, conceal, lie, deceive, defraud, etc etc, resulting in harm to an individual.

    The Framer's of the Constitution viewed Free Speech the same.

    The "Free" in Free Speech does not mean one has the freedom to misrepresent, conceal, lie, deceive, defraud, slander, libel, defame, inflame, incense, propagandize, spread disinformation, etc etc, resulting in harm to an individual.
     
  5. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,074
    Likes Received:
    13,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree but I don't think there is a free market if one ever existed. It's theoretical.
     
  6. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are traveling a road and stop to ask directions, and the person you ask knowingly sends you down a road with
    a bridge out, and you die - is that just someone exercising free speech? If someone was standing next to the person giving
    directions, and says nothing to stop it - are they complicit? That's the scenario that private companies are looking at - LIABILITY.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  7. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    13,465
    Likes Received:
    9,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you drive off a bridge that is non existent it’s your own fault
     
    Jarlaxle and Imnotreallyhere like this.
  8. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's nothing theoretical about the Free Market. It's been observed and recorded in operation for more than 7,000 years.

    It is nothing more than consumers of all classes (meaning individuals, households, businesses and industry etc) voluntarily engaging in consumer transactions and paying market rate prices.
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And for all of that time there has been legal constraints on what you can and cannot claim - false advertising, fraud hate speech etc
     
  10. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, for the hard of hearing, Free Market does not mean free to lie, deceive, misrepresent, conceal, defraud, etc etc.

    The operand in voluntary consumer transaction is "voluntary."

    A consumer transaction cannot be voluntary if there is concealment, misrepresentations, deception, fraud, etc etc.

    Hart Realty, I think it was. Somewhere in Nevada. Sold lakeside cottages in Idaho. Nice photos of cottages next to a beautiful lake with electricity, cable and running water, and boat docks.

    A shill, confederate, point man, whatever you wanna call them would tell you, "Yeah, I bought one and I love it up there!"

    You fork over $300,000 sight unseen, then go up there a a month or two later only to find out there is no lake. It's a mud flat. There's 3-4 inches of standing water in late Spring from snow melt. No docks. The cottages are actually cabins. It's a gravel road, not paved, and there's no electricity or running water.

    You got conned. 2 of those guys are still in prison by the way.

    Why? Because that wasn't a voluntary consumer transaction since material facts were concealed etc.

    Had you known that up front, you might not have bought the land, but let's assume you were aware of all material facts, then you'd be making the best informed decision possible and the consumer transaction would be voluntary.
     
  11. Tejas

    Tejas Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2021
    Messages:
    3,436
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Let me get this straight...

    "Private businesses" and their "private property" is sacred and can't be touched...
    but individuals and their private property [think landlords] and their own bodies are NOT ?!

    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2021
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,612
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would be concerned how much public money or resources is being devoted to helping these private companies sort through all those posts to identify which ones they want to delete.

    That's almost like public funding of censorship (and a very controversial form of censorship at that).
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  13. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, section 230 gives them immunity from liability.
     
  14. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A free market is a peaceful market. If someone is committing fraud, then they are harming others materially, or attempting to.Thus, those being defrauded must be free to defend themselves or pursue justice. Otherwise, it's not a free market. What's also not a free market is when government claims the right to violently intervene in the peaceful, consensual interactions between individuals. Legal constraints, when used to resolve conflict, are part of a free market. When use to impose morals, and values, or to give one business an advantage over others, are not a part of a free market.

    Hate speech is just expression of a person's abhorrent opinions. They are not crimes just because you don't like them.
     
  15. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But then there is an issue of who decides what is misinformation and what is actual information. With so many things in politics being subjective and merely opinions, who do you trust to tag the misinformation? The bigwigs at Facebook and Twitter? The federal government? I don't think so.

    Issues like global warming and the safety of the vaccines are not 100% facts at this point. There is nothing wrong with differing opinions and thoughts.

    Anyway, the problem is, who fact checks the fact checkers? Everyone has a political bias and such will show up in what they believe is the truth.
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Nowhere does it say a private company must carry advertising or content they do not agree with
     
    bomberfox likes this.
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Errrrr then you use “preponderance of evidence” same as for every other thing in the world
     
  18. Wynn Sayer

    Wynn Sayer Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2021
    Messages:
    890
    Likes Received:
    478
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well, at least I got to taste the internet when it was free. :)

    Hey umm, how come the government never got onto Zuckerberg for accepting money from Russian trolls that were trying to influence elections in the US?

    He took all the money for that and got zero penalties.

    He is the sole profiter from all that happening.
    He gladly accepted their money and gave them a platform, but he was never indicted like they were.
    The Twitter guy is big on having ANTIFA organize on his platform.
    Every ANTIFA riot has been organized on Twitter.
    Oh! The "Stop the Steal" 1/6 thing was organized on Twitter, too.
    They pumped each other up to the max.
    I left that thread because they were getting kooky.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2021
    roorooroo likes this.
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    then the government should provide the platform, absorb the costs, ect.....

    maybe the right would support that, a government run social media platform?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  20. Wynn Sayer

    Wynn Sayer Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2021
    Messages:
    890
    Likes Received:
    478
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm sure criticizing the government on something like that would go great! /sarcasm

    Any more ridiculous suggestions?
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2021
    Imnotreallyhere likes this.
  21. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you agree with me that it would not work, and the same people demanding it now, would be the same whining later
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2021
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  22. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,239
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Interesting test of how much deliberate lying a pack of political hacks can engage in and not be ordered to pay damages:

    Virginia Citizens Defense League Files $450,000 Libel Suit Against Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

    That's how you do it. Sue the lying bastards.

    "Gun control" knuckleheads "and their supporters in politics and the media love to throw around epithets about those of us in the gun rights community. They’re fond of describing law-abiding firearm owners and those who support Second Amendment rights as violent insurrectionists and terrorists."

    We'll soon find out if they had their lawyer look those claims over before they broadcast them. The brick heads later tried to delete "the libelous and defamatory language" but, too little, too late.

    Just get your checkbook out you lying libelous slanderous bastards.

    Weird how the folks that are ordered to get their checkbooks out keep seeming to be from the Left viewpoint. I wonder why that is?
     
  23. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As usual, they got it ass-backwards. The 80% who commit crimes with illegally obtained or illegally possessed handguns are the violent insurrectionists and terrorists.
     
  24. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not when in cooperation with government. They become quasi government actors.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  25. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Libel should be a felony.
     

Share This Page