Surrendering our Freedom of Speech.

a reply to: Plotus

some soy boys and cuck liberals

Huh.

Guess you outed yourself right there with your pejoratives. This is identity branding at it's best. I guess you buy into the beliefs and culture that made up these terms. Sheep much?

a reply to: grey580

That's fine.

At the same time. Just because you have free speech. Doesn't mean that a business or individuals have to listen to that speech. Especially if the speech is unethical, immoral, may incite violence etc.

You don't have to listen to it, no, but you don't need to censor it either. When ignoring speech is as easy as closing a browser window or clicking on another page, restricting the fundamental freedoms of others is wholly unnecessary.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

facebook is a business. And like all business. If a crazy guy comes into your store and starts to yell crazy stuff that annoys your other customers. You guy up to that person and ask them to leave. If that persons is extra crazy you tell him not to come back.

How is that any different than what we have here?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

facebook is a business. And like all business. If a crazy guy comes into your store and starts to yell crazy stuff that annoys your other customers. You guy up to that person and ask them to leave. If that persons is extra crazy you tell him not to come back.

How is that any different than what we have here?

Well to be fair on Facebook it’s up to your customers what content they view.

It’s possible to be on Facebook for years upon years and never see a post by AJ. On Facebook your customers have the choice just to not bother reading thst content. Totally different from a shot or restaurant.

a reply to: grey580

facebook is a business. And like all business. If a crazy guy comes into your store and starts to yell crazy stuff that annoys your other customers. You guy up to that person and ask them to leave. If that persons is extra crazy you tell him not to come back.

How is that any different than what we have here?

A webpage isn't a brick and mortar.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It's just the reality of the world that we live in. We're also at the mercy of phone companies, and ISPs (usually the same), and power companies, and Big Agriculture, and Big Pharma, and everything else that we have come to expect as a norm in modern society.

Honestly, it's the "stupid tax" that we pay for losing self reliance in exchange for Big Industry handling every part of our daily lives.

But it bears noting that a freedom of speech is NOT a guarantee that we all, as individuals, have access to the same platforms and media audience as another person. All it means is that the government can't stop us from saying something.

I'm on the fence with you--I fully acknowledge that these are private companies, and therefore can do whatever they like (within legal guidelines) concerning people using their product/service--especially considering that it's free. However, the reality that these are now the societal norms of communication isn't lost on me, either, so I do ponder the bigger question about what this does mean for the future of free speech.

But I always go back to what I just said--we're all not entitled to the same platform and audience, so if we want to use someone's freely offered service that gives us a voice to the world, we must accept that there are chances that we will lose that privilege at the will of the owner of the service.

Actually it is some people in the government
that are punting pressure on them!
a hand full of people screaming that some thing is wrong.

a Old English world, sh*t house. it just says what it IS.
a small house out side the main house to sh*t in.
it is Not a bad world, it is some thing you do.

but some people like us to think they Dont sh*t.
so they Ban this word and others.
it is Not the word it is how you use it.
when do we ban the word toilet?


like the word retarded. you can not use it.
they just use some other world.
But this new word has the Same meaning!!!!!!
only the retarded fall for this...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But it bears noting that a freedom of speech is NOT a guarantee that we all, as individuals, have access to the same platforms and media audience as another person. All it means is that the government can't stop us from saying something.

I do not agree with you here. Freedom of speech is basically the principle that one should be able to impart and receive information without fear of restriction or censorship by force or coercion.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This is true. However people that do follow him view the content.

facebook certainly can see it. they have a responsibility to monitor their platform and apply the T&C if necessary.

This site certainly does.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

That was just an example.

The website is a place where people can share ideas, events etc. The online carries into the real world in a meaningful way.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You are free to disagree, for sure, but I've read the constitution and many, many court rulings concerning the first amendment--that's from where I derive my opinion on the matter.

Now, if you're capable of showing me where private businesses don't have a right to censor or restrict things said or how their products/services are used, then I'm all ears.

Yes, I know that you're incorrect--there is no right to equal platforms or volumes or audiences--but I'm just interested to see what you produce to back your claim, if anything. See, there's a difference between arguing the philosophy of free speech versus the reality of it's constitutional protections, but again, let's see what you've got to prove me wrong, because I don't disagree with your assertion to the philosophy of it, but that's not what I was talking about.

Commercial companies make decisions based on commercial returns and good PR. Alex Jones is not a money spinner, so why allow him on your network? If Jones wants to do his own thing, then that's his prerogative.

Jones can choose who and what to put on his "owned" website, such as Infowars, so Twitter can also make that choice. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

Nothing to do with free speech. Everything to do with commercial decisions and PR.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There was a time when people walked to the public square to talk and exercise freedom of speech, then times changed and people migrated to the telephone. So to protect freedom of speech the phone companies cannot ban you for community management purposes. Now people have migrated from the telephone to a few specific social websites. They have not yet extended such protections to these sites so we must be vocal to ensure they do.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are free to disagree, for sure, but I've read the constitution and many, many court rulings concerning the first amendment--that's from where I derive my opinion on the matter.

Now, if you're capable of showing me where private businesses don't have a right to censor or restrict things said or how their products/services are used, then I'm all ears.

Yes, I know that you're incorrect--there is no right to equal platforms or volumes or audiences--but I'm just interested to see what you produce to back your claim, if anything. See, there's a difference between arguing the philosophy of free speech versus the reality of it's constitutional protections, but again, let's see what you've got to prove me wrong, because I don't disagree with your assertion to the philosophy of it, but that's not what I was talking about.

Well, free of speech is one thing, the first amendment is another. Even the first amendment is capable of distinguishing itself from the principles it protects, so I'm not sure why someone who has purportedly read the constitution and many court rulings is unable to make that distinction.

No one said businesses do not have the right to restrict speech, so I am unsure, unless through some sort of assumption, where you thought someone did.

If you're not talking about the freedom of speech, but the first amendment, try saying "first amendment" instead of "freedom of speech", because you only complicate the matter.

Liberals can't argue out of both sides of their mouths... well, they do, but that is another topic.

If a few Russian ad's on Facebook and other platforms are supposed to have influenced the election, then how can you argue that these same platforms banning people like Alex Jones is not speech?

You can't claim that these platforms have so much sway over public opinion that a few Russian ads can sway an election and then try to claim that they aren't suppressing speech by banning people they don't like.

While I agree that these are private companies and should be able to do what they want, the reality is that they are in a sense near monopolies and they do and can shape public opinion given how ubiquitous they've become.

originally posted by: Elton
No company should be compelled to broadcast your opinions for free.
His free speech was not compromised, he can still say and broadcast whatever he wants, he just needs to pay for hosting or set it up himself (both options are available.)
The right to use someone else's service to broadcast your ideas is not a Constitutionally protected right.

That's fair, but then those companies should not be advertising themselves as platform free and open to anyone the way they do and have.

When that happens, it is sort of implied their services are, in fact, free and open and not censored.

So, you know, truth in advertising.

a reply to: SpergLord

I disagree--I don't think that the government should be telling non-government companies what they should and shouldn't do concerning their policies of banning people.

But, to each their own...I respect your right to think differently.

Are you implying that ATS shouldn't reserve the right to ban people who they deem as no following their prescribed, or even inferred, rules of use of the site? It's the same thing.

Funny point--when I first joined this site, I did it under a different name, and for absolutely no reason that I can still understand, I was banned within my first few comments. I wasn't confrontational or attacking anyone personally, I was just disagreeing with someone. So, I had to create another account, have acted exactly the same way since then, and have never been banned and only had comments removed a handful of times over the past 5-ish years of participation on this site.

Should I "be vocal" to the federal government about that?

(the answer is "no")

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Nah, I think that I'll stick with my original comment that you quoted and responded to, because nothing I said in it is wrong or vague, even if you objected to it for a reason that I still don't care to ponder.

But, hey, if you couldn't infer from my comment that I was talking about our constitutional protection under the first amendment when I said (and you quoted...which means you read):

But it bears noting that a freedom of speech is NOT a guarantee that we all, as individuals, have access to the same platforms and media audience as another person. All it means is that the government can't stop us from saying something.

...then I don't know what to tell you.

Regardless, nitpicking my communication style isn't something I'm going to spend anymore time on.

Best regards.

ETA: Let me point to Elton's comment at the beginning of the thread, which mirrors my point almost perfectly...and he didn't even cite the phrase "first amendment," but we all knew what he was saying:

originally posted by: Elton
No company should be compelled to broadcast your opinions for free.
His free speech was not compromised, he can still say and broadcast whatever he wants, he just needs to pay for hosting or set it up himself (both options are available.)
The right to use someone else's service to broadcast your ideas is not a Constitutionally protected right.

WABC doesn’t give me a three hour daily slot to voice my opinions and speak with callers for free as volunteer nor as a paid and sponsored host. WABC is neither hampering my freedom of speech nor freedom of press with their production policies that do not include me.

Can I be disappointed? Sure. Are my rights being trampled? No. Because WABC is business and I have zero entitlements to their business decisions. Substitute whichever social media site for WABC and Alex Jones for me and the same thing applies.

What is so hard to understand about that?