Propaganda - and Social Media - and Free Speech

And you tried to claim that it is common. Which is why I asked for evidence of your claim. You never did provide it. But you did admit that its not near as prevalent as your claim led readers to believe. In this post. "what is not common .. is folks using such slurs in public ..." Those are your own words.

And yes, the majority of society does and does not do things. But we're only talking about one thing. Not those others. So your point here is a non sequitur. What is relevant to our discussion is hate speech vs free speech. You claim that hate speech is violence. You base this claim on the fact that if a person hears a slur then they will attack someone. But that is not always true now is it? My example proved that. Of course you called the example "simplistic" on a "prima facie level". By doing that you admitted, obliquely, that using a slur does not always lead to violence. So, since we both know that it does not always lead to violence what does that mean? That it is not the words themselves that cause the violence. It is the person who takes offence to the word that causes the violence. Meaning that hate speech does not cause violence by its self. So all that's left is that the words are offensive. Meaning that someone has to take offense. And then choose to commit violence. Two separate actions. Furthermore as has been established, no one has a right to not be offended. But one DOES have a Right to Free Speech. Including offensive speech. Indeed, that is exactly why the 1st Amendment protects Free Speech. To protect offensive speech from government interference. In other words Free Speech is specifically about protecting offensive speech. Which means slurs included.

Yes, the general population. What else would there be? Are people living in ghettos not a part of the general population? You can give examples of slurs causing people to take offense and react violently. But I can also give examples where they did not take offense and even if they did they did not resort to violence. Including among the ghetto's. Both of our arguments combined only prove my point. That its not the words themselves that cause the violence. Its the people who take offense and then act on that that cause the violence...or don't. Its' their choice to take offense, or not take offense. Its their choice to act violently or not act violently. The words themselves do not do anything.

What backtracking have I done? I'm the one pointing out that I've been using the same argument from the same starting point. You're the one that tried to move it strictly to ghettos. You're also the one that said that by answering your question then I would lose the argument. And yet, I haven't lost a thing. Indeed all that has happened is that I have proven my point. Your argument did not go the way that you think it did.

Free Speech is an essential liberty. And Free Speech is about saying things that are offensive (including slurs). Approved speech does not need the protection of Free Speech. So yes, slurs are an essential liberty. You may hate those slurs (and for the record so do I), but they are none the less an essential part of Free Speech.

 

Racial slurs are indeed killing free speech, but it only applies to those of us on the political right, and for the most part its not even racial slurs that accounts for this movement by the left to silence us on the right. Racist race-baiting leftists on most social media outlets get a free pass and free speech rights while kowtowing to the high and mighty democrat-Marxist oligarchy of this current administration.

 

Do you really think that when people talk about Free Speech they are ONLY talking about the 1st Amendment? While the 1st Amendment applies to the government, it embodies an ideal also.

 

Hmm...perhaps you could ask what the circumstances were when he was asked that before automatically labeling him a racist? There are many slurs out there that many people do not know about. It is possible for one to use a slur without meaning to. Just a thought, that's all. :shrug:

 

Trump actually tried to do what he has every right to do and start his own social media. His own incompetence; greed, and bad reputation doomed that. There are other alternatives to FB that are doing well, I hear. Use them or start your own.

 

Private entities are not subject to first amendment.

 

Guess that answers my question. You don't believe in the ideal of Free Speech. Guess the phrase "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" holds no real meaning for you.

 

I definitely believe in the first amendment. That you don’t understand the first amendment doesn’t give you the right to claim I’m not for free speech. Where did I say I wouldn’t defend someone’s right to say whatever they want?

 

It is common for a racial slur to provoke violence -- have you no clue what the term "Relative means" ? You stating .. well most people don't do this .. is abject nonsense .. as most people don't use racial slurs.. but if they do - in public ..there is a significant probability that a strong reaction or violence will occur .... relative to .... encoutering violence when not using such a slur.

Your in denial of reality .. then making up falsehoods claiming I tried to move it strictly to Ghettos .. despite the fact that I stated there were numerous other places in the post you are responding to - that Ghetto's were just one example. What a pathetic strawman attempt .. projecting your issues onto others.

you have no clue what essential liberty is.. if you can't distinguish between a racial slur and non violence inciting behavior .. Think yelling fire in a crowded theatre is your right ..

 

Your post sounds like a brilliant defense of fascism. The state is restrained by the US Constitution, but corporations can do whatever they want to in destroying freedom.

Yes, bowing to the robots and applauding the demise of liberty brought by corporations.

 

On the contrary, it is a defense of free market capitalism.

Corporations, made up of people, are also protected by the Constitution.

Your argument assumes a private entity owes you platform. Forcing it to do so by using the state's monopoly on organized violence would be exactly the kind of Fascism to which you claim to object.

You are free to start your own social media platform and beat your competition by offering a superior product.

 

Public school education?

One poster even suggested since social media outlets are publicly-traded, they are not private entities.

 

Maybe only a junior high school education

 

?? - how is it that you can not understand why hate speech is not part of "Free Speech" not Essential liberty - but you get that election outcomes can be effected by censorship - which would be an affront to essential liberty - especially in a "Tyranny of the Majority" system like we have become. ..

You are arguing against yourself in a convoluted sort of way -- as although these issues differ -some of the principles one needs to uphold in both cases are the same.

Must get playbooks on same page to effect change .. to score points.

 

How is it that you don't understand that the mantra of "hate speech" is just another form of censorship, a nebulous one at that? My stance is the same regardless and simple. Censorship = bad. No matter how its applied. Your way of thinking excuses human violence for words. Mine doesn't. People choose to take offense. People choose to be violent. I hold people accountable for their actions. Not their thoughts. And speech is just your thoughts spoken allowed.

Think about it, what IS hate speech? Words which creates violence? No. We already have laws and a phrase for speech that creates violence. Its called incitement to violence. So, what is hate speech?

 

It is very hard to legislate the protection needed, but the least should be removing the liability protection of straight-forward carriers of information, which big tech is definitely not.

 

Why would you want to remove liability protection ? .. They should not be responsible for content in general -- yes .. take down child porn and so on . .. but .. that is kind of the bar. .. what they can't do .. or should not be able to do .. is censor content .. and what you are suggesting goes contrary to that objective. Censoring on the basis of offending someone - some interest .. and so on.. .. NO .. get the child porn off .. .. that is pretty much it. If it is not illegal speech .. hands off the free flow of information. and it is especially hands off in terms of political discourse - as that is why we have freedom of speech .. political discourse is its purpose.

 

The rub is while you cannot keep someone from saying or printing anything, neither can you force them to say or print something that they don't want to say or print. But if big tech could be held liable for not printing something on a evident arbitrary and discriminatory basis, you might have some recourse.

 

NOOooo .. no .. That is what you are missing here. and they are not "Printing" anything .. this is not a news outlet - this is an information center - one that has a monopoly at the moment - an Oligopoly - and these have become a primary outlet for speech .. the voice of the masses .. where you can both give and recieve information .. to the local or global community.

This is not Joe's cake shop .. where you can go next door .. this is a monopoly on ideas and thought .. that gets out into the mainstream.. and they control the portal - control of which .. if you had any doubt of how much control they have - can be measured in advertizing dollars - or market cap of these bohemouths.

They are that big for a reason " All Eyes on US"

It is not some secret that if you can control the message - you can control the hive mind of the masses - it is published science .. and a multi billion dollar global industry called "Public Relations" .. pioneered by Edward Bernays if you are interested.

This is not about Joe's cake shop .. Monopoly is a different category .. and what we are talking about here is a far different thing .. control of the message ..

 

It's NOT YOUR WEBSITE and that IS all Facebook is. It's Mark Zuckerberg's Webpage, nothing more.

Should I be able to force your Webpage to run my essays on "The Human Fetus As A Malignant Tumour" or "The Economic Necessity For Open Borders"?

 

Not true. You can't discriminate based on race.

 

That only applies to places of public accommodation. Facebook can discriminate based on race if it wants to.

And any public accommodation can certainly discriminate based on behavior.

 

No one's forcing FB to post or run anything. We are not talking about content posted by Mark Z. This is not Joe's cake shop .. and this is not harry's local paper ... and you should not conflate the two.

This is a monopoly on free expression.

 

Just as this site has rules to follow so does every other social media outlet. Do you want the govt to ban private entities from having a say in the rules it wants?
What specifically have you personally not been able to post on FB?

 

No .. it is not just another form of censorship - and it is not "nebulous" -- racial slur is quite specific - and the type of slur even more specific. - one that meets a high bar - that bar being leading to violence a significant percentage of the time.

You have yet to figure out that waking up to a black person in a bar and calling the N-Word has a significant probability of violence - so no surprise you do not understand the distintion.