Over the years, I have noticed that many people feel they have the right to say whatever they want in an online discussion forum-- and that if a moderator confronts them, their Constitutional rights are being violated.
I have noticed that many people feel they have the right to say whatever they want in an online discussion forum
I don't know if that's really the question. You have pictured Thomas Jefferson above. I believe he once said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." Having said that, I wonder what he would have thought of an unregulated monopoly, such as Google or Facebook, which controls information and debate, deciding what opinions were fit to be heard?
I haven't decided on that, I'm just asking some questions.
TJ wrote extensively about his thoughts on the press. One thing he based his opinions on was the fact that the press was held liable for what they printed. Newspaper editors control the content of their publications.
How would knowing what TJ would think of Google or Facebook inform your decision?
The idea is after all to preserve the right of "Free Speech"?
The only right we have to 'free speech' is enumerated in the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congressional actions. Neither Google or Facebook are the Congress.
How would knowing what TJ would think of Google or Facebook inform your decision?
You left out TJ's quote, which I provided to show TJ's idea that more info and or opinion was preferable to less. Thus my question on what such a man would have thought about present day monopolies who control information and opinion. I'm not sure how to address it or even if it can be addressed.
which I provided to show TJ's idea that more info and or opinion was preferable to less.
Which obviously infers that more than ONE source is necessary to garner that information. TJ was well aware of 'partisan censorship' by the editors of publications. He wrote letters of publishers addressing that very fact.
Thus my question on what such a man would have thought about present day monopolies who control information and opinion.
First of all, Google isn't a monopoly. There are multiple search engines available for your use. Ditto for cloud services. No one forces anyone to use Facebook or Google.
I'm not sure how to address it or even if it can be addressed.
It's hard to tell if anyone responding to this seed actually watched Project Veritas video about Google. I did though. Most of the video contains the thoughts of a disgruntled Google employee who spills the beans on how Google tries to fool people through the "auto-complete" of search terms. Whatever the worth of this employees "accusations" (I think they are practically worthless as a "bombshell" revelation) , they have virtually nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you want to google "Obama's crimes" , you will get results for "Obama's crimes" however fruitless the search may be. Google doesnt prevent you from seeing the sites with such information. James O'Keefe does in this video what he always does, he tries to make insignificant tidbits into a national scandal of gargantuan proportions. As usual there is no there there.
OK let me explain, Vic has an open group and his members can post articles within the group and they will show on the front page. I can understand the confusion and I will make all the proper corrections with moderation.
There has always been 'partisan censorship' by the media AND the government. What book got printed, what newspapers reported, what the radio played and what was allowed on TV. None of it's new.
The country managed to bear with it from the first and survived.
Historically, the hallmark of all successful publishing has always been the professional application of editorial control of content and the same holds true for websites and social media. The New York Times is not obligated to publish any olde bullshit submitted to it and websites are certainly not obligated to provide a platform for any and all views. Fake news and harmful foreign propaganda can find their own platforms. Decent American private enterprises are not obligated to provide one for them...
I could not agree more with the message of the cartoon. Who would not?
Legality aside, what is our country coming to when this sort of partisan censorship is acceptable?
That seems like the perspective of someone who has no US history education. We've been dealing with the concept of censorship since our founding, and the fact is long before the internet we had newspapers that were free to print OR NOT PRINT whatever the feck they wanted. And they were brutal to political parties and opponents. And there were papers who took sides and were the FOX and MSNBC of their time. They would reject any opinion authors view points and refuse to print ideological babble they didn't agree with. The only difference between the media companies of old and the ones today is size and reach. Sure, Google, Facebook, YouTube and other media platforms are monoliths garnering much wider viewership than someone's blog from their basement, but they still have the same rights to host only content they agree with or align with just like any other private business.
So one has to ask themselves, is the "partisan censorship" coming from the government? If so, then it should be stopped. What I hear here seem to be Republicans expressing their desire to use the government to force their partisan beliefs on private companies and citizens which actually would be a violation of their free speech.
Newspapers and broadcast media have been partisan for the last 40 years when the Fairness Doctrine was discarded. I don't hear any of you crying about that.
Google is a privately owned company. It's CEO and board of directors were not elected by the American people. Do what deleted people always do...boycott it
If you think a country where every business in one side or the other excludes the other half of the country is sustainable, I've got swamp land in the everglades to sell you.
They have the right to control the content of their website. If you want to talk about sports or cars on a website, do you really want people spamming it with politics?
Ya know...it's killing me that you cons want all kinds of free speech everywhere you go but when somebody calls you out on your bullshit you scream "OPPRESSION!"
I belong to a couple of private groups on FB dedicated to high school and college associations and reunions and such. Just judging from those it is the Trumpsters who seem compelled to constantly and inappropriately spam inflamatory pro-Trump anti-Democratic bullshit where it is unwelcome. Even among old friends some are completely unaware how offensive that crap is to most in the groups no matter their political disposition...
I would also think allowing any old nonsense on a website would eventually cause members to float away. If I want to talk about sewing and Sean up there comes into the website and starts talking anti-liberal this and pro-trmp that, I will probably get mad and make a few unsavory comments at him. Meanwhile, the other members are watching this bullshit, get tired of it, insist that the moderator/owner do something about it, the M/O refuses, and the membership quits.
Well, so much for allowing any speech because now that website barely exists anymore.
Here in America, private citizens can say what they like, criticize whoever they want without fear of reprisal. Private companies can choose to host whatever content they want as long as it doesn't cross the line into libel. Being "biased" isn't illegal in America, so you can operate a business like FOX which is so biased, if it leaned any further right its head would be on the ground. Fox doesn't have to host liberal or progressive views and I accept that. They have every right to refuse content they disagree with. Sadly, it seems Fox and religious conservatives don't feel the same when it comes to liberal or progressive companies who choose not to host conservative or alt-right hate speech and viewpoints. They want to be allowed to censor any liberal or progressive views while simultaneously trying to use the government to force liberal and progressive media companies to carry their conservative views. It's hard to achieve this level of hypocrisy, but somehow there are always some religious conservatives up to the challenge.
Free Speech is under attack in America, though not from the government.
What it appears you desire is for speech to be consequence free or that everyone must respectfully listen to every opinion. That's not what the first amendment guarantees. If someone says shit that is offensive, that's their right, and it's my right to tell that person to go shove their offensive xenophobic garbage where the sun doesn't shine.
Did I not read recently that FOX news was the most popular and watched news source in America?
What was that adage - You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
They probably need a conference now. The leader of the debate team is out for a little fresh air, one would hope.
Well gee Vic, you seem to be having a lovely conversation all on your own and it looks like you've finally found a debate partner who will applaud your every utterance.
OK let me explain, Vic has an open group and his members can post articles within the group and they will show on the front page. I can understand the confusion and I will make all the proper corrections with moderation.
When did that happen? When does it ever happen? I'd be surprised if most of the religious conservatives would even be able to recognize a fact if they saw one nowadays.
What's the difference between bias and censorship? Both can contravene the First Amendment, can they not?
Here's the actual text of the First Amendment:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In terms of free speech, it basically says Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech. Which means, among other things, that the media has the right to free speech-- and of course that includes the media's right to express "biased" views.
BTW, as one might expect, there have been numerous Supreme Court opinions re: the right to free speech. Atone point I was quite interested in this subject and read a lot of these opinions. The right to "freedom of speech" is not absolute.
IIRC, one of the most important limits to free speech is that speech inciting violence is not permitted. In addition, while the government must permit free speech, private organizations can limit it. Another ruling I remember is that citizens do not have the right to not be offended.-
The US government beheads us for cartoons of Mohammed?
Not last I heard.
There are governments, I'm sure, that restrict free speech rights, right down to banning internet sites within their borders, but the US isn't one of them.
IRAQI CLERIC: QURAN FOCUSES ON JEWS SO MUCH BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR SWORN ENEMY WITH WHOM WE CAN NEVER MAKE PEACE
MEMRI, June 2019:
June 16, 2019
Iraqi Cleric Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin: The Quran Focuses on the Jews So Much Because They Are Our Sworn Enemy with Whom We Can Never Make Peace
Iraqi cleric Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin said in a June 16, 2019 broadcast on Al-Naeem TV (Iraq) that the Quran focuses on the Jews as much as it does because they are the “sworn enemy” of the Muslims. He explained that this always has and will always be true, and that the Quran discusses the Jews so that Muslims can understand their enemy’s mentality and so that Muslims know that the Jews are permanent and “recalcitrant” enemy with whom peace agreements cannot be made and who will never be satisfied with concessions.
Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin: “Why does the Quran focus on the Jews? First of all, because they are [our] sworn enemy. The Jews… [The Quran says:] ‘You shall find the people strongest in enmity towards the believers to be the Jews.’ This was true in the past, it is true today, and it will continue to be true in the future.
“The Quran focuses on the Jews for two reasons. First of all, in order for you to know your enemy’s mentality. Second, you must know that this is not a temporary enemy with whom we can sign a peace agreement – the Oslo Accords, or whatever… No! This is a recalcitrant and experienced enemy. No matter how many concessions you make to this enemy, they will remain recalcitrant and stubborn.”
As expected the RWCW (rightwingculturewarriors) are outraged that private media companies are beginning to eliminate their lying, smearing and false propaganda with which they've been polluting the internet with impunity so far.
I'm really enjoying this fake-victim role that rightwingers love to play, even as they keep pushing the lie that all those claims of victimization by minorities are hoaxes. The projection never stops.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Over the years, I have noticed that many people feel they have the right to say whatever they want in an online discussion forum-- and that if a moderator confronts them, their Constitutional rights are being violated.
I don't know if that's really the question. You have pictured Thomas Jefferson above. I believe he once said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." Having said that, I wonder what he would have thought of an unregulated monopoly, such as Google or Facebook, which controls information and debate, deciding what opinions were fit to be heard?
So I take it you are for more government regulation of the media?
Good for you. Since you jumped in, what's Vic's answer?
I haven't decided on that, I'm just asking some questions. The idea is after all to preserve the right of "Free Speech"?
What so called 'conservative' group is allegedly being denied their free speech rights now?
Vic agreeing with Liz Warren now? Breaking up Google might be a good thing? Project veritas seems to agree.
Maybe she's right on that one?
TJ wrote extensively about his thoughts on the press. One thing he based his opinions on was the fact that the press was held liable for what they printed. Newspaper editors control the content of their publications.
How would knowing what TJ would think of Google or Facebook inform your decision?
The only right we have to 'free speech' is enumerated in the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congressional actions. Neither Google or Facebook are the Congress.
You left out TJ's quote, which I provided to show TJ's idea that more info and or opinion was preferable to less. Thus my question on what such a man would have thought about present day monopolies who control information and opinion. I'm not sure how to address it or even if it can be addressed.
Actually, I address it and MORE.
Which obviously infers that more than ONE source is necessary to garner that information. TJ was well aware of 'partisan censorship' by the editors of publications. He wrote letters of publishers addressing that very fact.
First of all, Google isn't a monopoly. There are multiple search engines available for your use. Ditto for cloud services. No one forces anyone to use Facebook or Google.
What needs to be addressed?
If you don't know, I don't think I can help you.
Well since your predicate has been refuted, I posit that since you can't cite what 'it' is, your comment is moot.
It's hard to tell if anyone responding to this seed actually watched Project Veritas video about Google. I did though. Most of the video contains the thoughts of a disgruntled Google employee who spills the beans on how Google tries to fool people through the "auto-complete" of search terms. Whatever the worth of this employees "accusations" (I think they are practically worthless as a "bombshell" revelation) , they have virtually nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you want to google "Obama's crimes" , you will get results for "Obama's crimes" however fruitless the search may be. Google doesnt prevent you from seeing the sites with such information. James O'Keefe does in this video what he always does, he tries to make insignificant tidbits into a national scandal of gargantuan proportions. As usual there is no there there.
Anything connected to 'Project Veritas' is bullshit and in the case of this seed, a deflection from the topic.
Yup
Exactly...
Which means she could be right on a lot of things.
It is the internet companies in general and social media there as well that really are the description of the last word of the cartoon.
Door?
xkcd has had some very thought provoking cartoons. Actually I came across this one in an article about a knitting forum:
Knitting website bans users from posting in support of Trump
I do believe that the last three panels more or less sum it up in my opinion.
I seeded an article about that bigot site. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/6412/the-liberal-myth-of-the-intolerant-other
You did? Then why post a link to Vic's seed?
Apparently XXJefferson#51 is a sock puppet of Vic Eldred. He just got confused about which alias he was using when he posted that comment.
Many White-wing Republicans use sock puppets.
Is that a meta violation? I'm never quite clear what that means.
OK let me explain, Vic has an open group and his members can post articles within the group and they will show on the front page. I can understand the confusion and I will make all the proper corrections with moderation.
Legality aside, what is our country coming to when this sort of partisan censorship is acceptable?
No country with any pretense of democracy can survive long if this continues...
There has always been 'partisan censorship' by the media AND the government. What book got printed, what newspapers reported, what the radio played and what was allowed on TV. None of it's new.
The country managed to bear with it from the first and survived.
Historically, the hallmark of all successful publishing has always been the professional application of editorial control of content and the same holds true for websites and social media. The New York Times is not obligated to publish any olde bullshit submitted to it and websites are certainly not obligated to provide a platform for any and all views. Fake news and harmful foreign propaganda can find their own platforms. Decent American private enterprises are not obligated to provide one for them...
I could not agree more with the message of the cartoon. Who would not?
The SPLC is the definition of the last word in that cartoon.
Door?
In your wildest dreams....
That seems like the perspective of someone who has no US history education. We've been dealing with the concept of censorship since our founding, and the fact is long before the internet we had newspapers that were free to print OR NOT PRINT whatever the feck they wanted. And they were brutal to political parties and opponents. And there were papers who took sides and were the FOX and MSNBC of their time. They would reject any opinion authors view points and refuse to print ideological babble they didn't agree with. The only difference between the media companies of old and the ones today is size and reach. Sure, Google, Facebook, YouTube and other media platforms are monoliths garnering much wider viewership than someone's blog from their basement, but they still have the same rights to host only content they agree with or align with just like any other private business.
So one has to ask themselves, is the "partisan censorship" coming from the government? If so, then it should be stopped. What I hear here seem to be Republicans expressing their desire to use the government to force their partisan beliefs on private companies and citizens which actually would be a violation of their free speech.
Ready to address what I wrote now? Or do you want to go attack another strawman?
I'm not talking about newspapers. Or google. If people like you need their news curated to their own little safe space, that's fine.
The whole sale politicization of non political activities (like knitting) is not sustainable.
He did.
If his comment attacked a straw man, you posted it.
You started this thread claiming that 'partisan censorship' wasn't sustainable and that at least has some connection to the topic.
Now you're deflecting with the claim that 'politicization of non political activities' isn't sustainable, but that has NOTHING to do with free speech.
I’ll get em the straw for their next creation.
Newspapers and broadcast media have been partisan for the last 40 years when the Fairness Doctrine was discarded. I don't hear any of you crying about that.
Google is a privately owned company. It's CEO and board of directors were not elected by the American people. Do what deleted people always do...boycott it
This isn't google, or a newspaper.
This is a sewing website.
If you think a country where every business in one side or the other excludes the other half of the country is sustainable, I've got swamp land in the everglades to sell you.
Why are people on a sewing website trying to spam the site with pro Trump propaganda?
It's a sewing website....that's my point.
They have the right to control the content of their website. If you want to talk about sports or cars on a website, do you really want people spamming it with politics?
Ya know...it's killing me that you cons want all kinds of free speech everywhere you go but when somebody calls you out on your bullshit you scream "OPPRESSION!"
I belong to a couple of private groups on FB dedicated to high school and college associations and reunions and such. Just judging from those it is the Trumpsters who seem compelled to constantly and inappropriately spam inflamatory pro-Trump anti-Democratic bullshit where it is unwelcome. Even among old friends some are completely unaware how offensive that crap is to most in the groups no matter their political disposition...
I would also think allowing any old nonsense on a website would eventually cause members to float away. If I want to talk about sewing and Sean up there comes into the website and starts talking anti-liberal this and pro-trmp that, I will probably get mad and make a few unsavory comments at him. Meanwhile, the other members are watching this bullshit, get tired of it, insist that the moderator/owner do something about it, the M/O refuses, and the membership quits.
Well, so much for allowing any speech because now that website barely exists anymore.
What's the difference between bias and censorship? Both can contravene the First Amendment, can they not?
Only if perpetrated by the government.
Like China.
Here in America, private citizens can say what they like, criticize whoever they want without fear of reprisal. Private companies can choose to host whatever content they want as long as it doesn't cross the line into libel. Being "biased" isn't illegal in America, so you can operate a business like FOX which is so biased, if it leaned any further right its head would be on the ground. Fox doesn't have to host liberal or progressive views and I accept that. They have every right to refuse content they disagree with. Sadly, it seems Fox and religious conservatives don't feel the same when it comes to liberal or progressive companies who choose not to host conservative or alt-right hate speech and viewpoints. They want to be allowed to censor any liberal or progressive views while simultaneously trying to use the government to force liberal and progressive media companies to carry their conservative views. It's hard to achieve this level of hypocrisy, but somehow there are always some religious conservatives up to the challenge.
Except on a college campus
Or outside of a Trump rally
Or at a political convention
Or when speech is offensive
Free Speech is under attack in America, though not from the government.
So who is free speech under attack from then Vic?
The Left
I wonder if anyone is surprised?
They probably need a conference now. The leader of the debate team is out for a little fresh air, one would hope.
What it appears you desire is for speech to be consequence free or that everyone must respectfully listen to every opinion. That's not what the first amendment guarantees. If someone says shit that is offensive, that's their right, and it's my right to tell that person to go shove their offensive xenophobic garbage where the sun doesn't shine.
Isn't it amazing how when free speech is under attack in America, its always from the Left?
As "everyone knows" those on the Right never, ever, attack free speech-- heck, they wouldn't even dream of it!
I wonder how many people here are aware of that?
Well, in any event, you deserve a big "thank you" for pointing that out.
By doing so you have greatly elevated the level of political discussion here on NT!
(Perhaps we need to bring back the 'ole NV "RAV"... anyone remember that?)
'The Left'
Color me fucking surprised!
Did I not read recently that FOX news was the most popular and watched news source in America?
What was that adage - You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Actually, it's not when it comes to the 'Evening News'. FOX is the most watched propaganda network.
Well gee Vic, you seem to be having a lovely conversation all on your own and it looks like you've finally found a debate partner who will applaud your every utterance.
What does all that (4.1.11) mean?
The internet has moved from being the biggest tool of free speech to being the single greatest enemy of free speech.
Popularity does not equal veracity
Also they only fool Rump's supporters, no one else.
We have to be careful we don't make it worse. Time will help cleanse it. We might just be saved.
Are you their Pied Piper? Yup, that's why Newsvine is long gone.
I wonder how many of his "debate partners" are his sock puppets?
I don’t remember what the RAV was from when I was there 2009-2015.
OK let me explain, Vic has an open group and his members can post articles within the group and they will show on the front page. I can understand the confusion and I will make all the proper corrections with moderation.
Like Iv'e always said, hit em with facts and they bail out.
Take care Buzz
When did that happen? When does it ever happen? I'd be surprised if most of the religious conservatives would even be able to recognize a fact if they saw one nowadays.
What facts were those that you hit us with Vic?
How does that relate to DP's question?
Directly
Don't see it.
Quite the sweeping generalization against us religious conservatives, don’t you think?
Of course not. I would not expect most secular progressives to see the point.
Quite the sweeping generalization against secular progressives, don’t you think?
Not any more outlandish as white people refuse to do back breaking farm work.
I think Facebook and Google can do what ever they want. They are under no restrictions of the 1st amendment.
In my opinion they have a bias but it is what it is.
Here's the actual text of the First Amendment:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In terms of free speech, it basically says Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech. Which means, among other things, that the media has the right to free speech-- and of course that includes the media's right to express "biased" views.
BTW, as one might expect, there have been numerous Supreme Court opinions re: the right to free speech. Atone point I was quite interested in this subject and read a lot of these opinions. The right to "freedom of speech" is not absolute.
IIRC, one of the most important limits to free speech is that speech inciting violence is not permitted. In addition, while the government must permit free speech, private organizations can limit it. Another ruling I remember is that citizens do not have the right to not be offended.-
In other words they cannot prevent anyone from doing a cartoon of Muhammud. But they sure as hell will try - to the extent of beheading you.
We're talking about American law here Buzz. We hang, burn, shoot and fry people here...
The US government beheads us for cartoons of Mohammed?
Not last I heard.
There are governments, I'm sure, that restrict free speech rights, right down to banning internet sites within their borders, but the US isn't one of them.
Everyone is not as obsessed with Muslims as you are. I think your outrage falls a little flat these days.
Look who's talking about "obsession". LOL
A TDS obsession 24/7/365.
IRAQI CLERIC: QURAN FOCUSES ON JEWS SO MUCH BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR SWORN ENEMY WITH WHOM WE CAN NEVER MAKE PEACE
MEMRI, June 2019:
June 16, 2019
Iraqi Cleric Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin: The Quran Focuses on the Jews So Much Because They Are Our Sworn Enemy with Whom We Can Never Make Peace
Iraqi cleric Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin said in a June 16, 2019 broadcast on Al-Naeem TV (Iraq) that the Quran focuses on the Jews as much as it does because they are the “sworn enemy” of the Muslims. He explained that this always has and will always be true, and that the Quran discusses the Jews so that Muslims can understand their enemy’s mentality and so that Muslims know that the Jews are permanent and “recalcitrant” enemy with whom peace agreements cannot be made and who will never be satisfied with concessions.
Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin: “Why does the Quran focus on the Jews? First of all, because they are [our] sworn enemy. The Jews… [The Quran says:] ‘You shall find the people strongest in enmity towards the believers to be the Jews.’ This was true in the past, it is true today, and it will continue to be true in the future.
“The Quran focuses on the Jews for two reasons. First of all, in order for you to know your enemy’s mentality. Second, you must know that this is not a temporary enemy with whom we can sign a peace agreement – the Oslo Accords, or whatever… No! This is a recalcitrant and experienced enemy. No matter how many concessions you make to this enemy, they will remain recalcitrant and stubborn.”
So it would seem. Ironic, yes?
I think it's fair to say that Buzz is a decent man and a friend to all of us. Let's not put him in a "position".
I wasn't talking about the government.
I'm aware that there are a few members here who would like to get rid of me.
[delete]
Since the comment you replied to WAS talking about the government, you should have been.
Don't be silly. I could care less.
My mistake.
Unless your goal was to double down on obsession, what relevance does your comment have to the topic?
Things containing vacuum implode, they don't explode.
You said that already.
A Canadian dude just lost some work due to this cartoon ...
And now for a little irony: I was censored for two of my comments on this free speech article.
According to the "logic" of the White-wingers doesn't that mean he's a liberal?
The situation was cleared up and everything is good to go al.
As expected the RWCW (rightwingculturewarriors) are outraged that private media companies are beginning to eliminate their lying, smearing and false propaganda with which they've been polluting the internet with impunity so far.
I'm really enjoying this fake-victim role that rightwingers love to play, even as they keep pushing the lie that all those claims of victimization by minorities are hoaxes. The projection never stops.