FREE SPEECH?

skiermanJudging from the title of your thread, you don't know what the fuck the 1st Amendment does.

DirtYStylEIt means the US Gov. will not interfere if people use the word. But, these mega corps have other views.

skiermanYea, exactly. Free speech has fuck nothing to do with what private companies decide, you idiot.

DirtYStylEDon't make me use the word.

JoeF2661What word? Please use.

TRVP_ANGELthe n word

LonelyI'm a big free speech guy, I just dont like it when someone trivializes the deaths of kids and encourages harassing the parents of the dead kids.

Also nothing the companies did infringed on free speech. I think that Infowars approaches the "telling fire in a crowded area" side of free speech.

Dustin.I think you'd have a hard time proving his words have the capability of inciting imminent lawlessness (the factor you are describing with the crowd and fire example) since people are simply angry, not creating mass chaos from his words. However, the bigger point here is that a private company can agree, disagree with, and ban anyone from using their products that they don't want to serve. They are not the government and you aren't entitled to social media, though it seems these days everyone and their mom thinks a driver's license, my tax dollars for your wine tasting college degree, and a Facebook account are God given rights.

Most "free speech" conversations we see simply highlight a gaping lack of understanding.

JAHpowWell you'll get banned here for speech too.

What goes around is all round. Not that I agree with bans, cuz I don't.

theabortionatorYou have freedom of speech but if you start causing a huge scene in a busy restaurant they'll still ask you to leave.

JAHpowThat's not what I'm really getting at. Of course, it's better to be respectful in that situation. Since I need to clarify, I mean open forum based. Like on here. I want people to be able to say whatever they want so that they can either make themselves sound like a complete fool in the first place, or because of their speech and views, open themselves up to critique by those willing to listen.

The referenced post has been removed.

-eREKTion-It does though... at least according to the Supreme Court. It is the court's established interpretation of the constitution that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. When weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion, the rights of the citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy the preferred position.

The "B-b-but private corporations can do whatever they want" argument is bullshit and you know it. This is a case of people vs. billion dollar corporations and you're arguing that property should have more rights than people. Is that really how you feel or just how you feel about conservatives?

Alex Jones is a moron, that hardly needs clarifying, but his ban is fucking Orwellian. He was banned simultaneously across platforms. That means that a handful of the worlds largest and most powerful tech companies coordinated to silence him. The fact that there isn't almost universal outrage is terrifying as well. Are we fine with letting the billionaire elite become the moral arbiters of free speech in this country? Are we cool with corporations having the power to determine what we can and can't say?

-eREKTion-It does though... at least according to the Supreme Court. It is the court's established interpretation of the constitution that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. When weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion, the rights of the citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy the preferred position.

The "B-b-but private corporations can do whatever they want" argument is bullshit and you know it. This is a case of people vs. billion dollar corporations and you're arguing that property should have more rights than people. Is that really how you feel or just how you feel about conservatives?

Alex Jones is a moron, that hardly needs clarifying, but his ban is fucking Orwellian. He was banned simultaneously across platforms. That means that a handful of the worlds largest and most powerful tech companies coordinated to silence him. The fact that there isn't almost universal outrage is terrifying as well. Are we fine with letting the billionaire elite become the moral arbiters of free speech in this country? Are we cool with corporations having the power to determine what we can and can't say?

skiermanSo let me get this straight.... You think private companies removing certain content is "Orwellian"....

The referenced post has been removed.

The referenced post has been removed.

The referenced post has been removed.

-eREKTion-Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Alex Jones is not representing Facebook/Apple/Google, his opinions therefore do not reflect upon those companies. In fact, by censoring Alex Jones these companies are actively editorializing content and could be accurately described as publishers which effectively endorses the rest of the content they host.

-eREKTion-Yes, I think a group of the worlds biggest corporations conspiring to silence someone is Orwellian.


Once again you're arguing in favor of property over people... I think the government should protect the people's right to free speech even if that means going against a corporations opaque terms of service.

You do know Orwell's "1984" novel (which is what the term "Orwellian" refers to) is about a totalitarian state, right? You do know what totalitarian state is, right?

Are you purposely trying to be an idiot or does it come naturally?