Comments
-
@Cave Dweller, persecution = deplatforming
-
@ImNotRacistBut, deplatforming= one party state.
-
@CocoasBro, I like how the like to dislike ratio gets more balanced as the statement becomes more accurate.
-
@ImNotRacistBut, great now I have to dislike that last one
-
@CocoasBro, i do not comprehend why someone downvoted that. Is it not true?
-
@Medic135, Alot of people on the left hate me, and downvote me at all times because they cant get the taste of my dick out of their mouths.
-
@CocoasBro, yes im sure thats true but the majority of voices on this app are normal people with a full understanding of freedoms. I'd wager to say most of us lean toward a libertarian field of view and very very few people here are hardcore indoctrinated, even most of our folks who seem to lean left at least do so gracefully and are smart
-
@Medic135, I wouldn't say smart, not everyone can be smart, but most ppl just wanna pay their bills and live their lives and get happy when it's Friday, very few ppl go full hog into politics
-
@RomeoStealYoGurl, but we all have our standards, our hills to die on and our thoughts on life. Otherwise we would contribute to the societal cancer known as apathy
-
@Cave Dweller, at first I read persecution as percussion and was like "duh ya idjit" but in fact I was the idjit
-
@Medic135, The typical liberal thinks "everyone else is a liberal why wouldn't they?". Sometimes people have different beliefs, different political views and its weird how unaccepting some can be.
-
Also, you don’t have to violate someone’s first amendment right to censor them. Shutting down dialogue and not being open to the exchange of ideas is dangerous, short sighted, and creates bubble thinkers. We have a culture of free speech that dictates the law. If we lose the culture the law will surely follow.
-
To argue that what we’ve seen happening is violating freedom of speech would require changing how the constitution is currently applied, or intervention in how dominant these social media platforms are. As it stands, it’s just factual that there are no first amendment rights being violated. I think the productive debate is whether or not we should set a new precedent
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, I think people miss that Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are all private entities, and that if they interpret what you say as a violation of their terms of service, then it is their right to remove you, the same way the owner of a restaurant can ask you to leave if you start shouting racial slurs during a meal. Doesn't make it okay, doesn't mean there isn't corruption involved, but it is their right to do it.
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, you don’t have to violate someone’s first amendment right to censor them. Shutting down dialogue and not being open to the exchange of ideas is dangerous, short sighted, and creates bubble thinkers.
-
@SimonPetrikov, in reality, I’m not concerned about private companies removing people from their service. I find it odd the reasons they did such, and the clear/obvious double standard they showed. There have been people/groups using Facebook/Twitter/etc all over the world organizing attacks/riots/etc for quite a while now, and all of a sudden they seem to be removing only certain groups/people just recently. It’s very odd. In fact, the incident used to justify shutting down Parler (Jan 6th), was organized mostly on Twitter and Facebook than anywhere else. So it’s really confusing if not obvious that there is a prior agenda.
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, when you ban large groups of people on a political basis and you're actively working with large numbers of politicians, and actively funding most of them, you are most certainly breaking the 1a. The other argument over section 230 isn't that we need to add a new law to protect free speech. The argument is that social media platforms receive certain protections for being a platform and not regulating the content. Once they start to regulate the content (i.e. ban a sitting president and his followers for starters) you are already in direct violation of the law. So "changing" section 230 isn't what is actually being called for (though its commonly misinterpreted). What needs to happen is section 230 is enforced by stripping social media of its protections as they're not entitled to such protections while they're in violation of the law. Once their protections are rightfully stripped, they can be sued out of existence for the fascist censoring they're committing.
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, just gonna ignore section 230 that allows them to operate without lawsuits arnt you.
-
@big freedom, I agree with that, but I see a lot of people interchangeably using the term “freedom of speech” with terms such as “censorship,” with one of those being a very specific constitutional right. I think that doing so hinders our ability to address the problem you’ve stated. For example, if we went through this deplatforming on a case by case basis, I’m 100% certain we’d disagree on the justification for many of them. That could be productive, discussing through that, but not if we’re operating on such different wavelengths before we even get into it
-
@spongeblade, that’s not how the first amendment works or has been applied *as of now.* Think it’s unethical? Sure. Think it’s censorship? Sure. Not even disagreeing with you from a general point of view. Is it a violation of the first amendment as of January 25, 2021? No, it’s not. Twitter isn’t a government entity. At this point, that’s where everyone needs to be on the same page. Going forward, NOW we can discuss section 230, and the scale that social media companies should have power and influence. That discussion is going to be had, and has to be had, before the first amendment will apply.
-
@CocoasBro, I did no such thing. See my response above and the specifics of how the first amendment is legally applied. I’m not arguing against this being censorship, unethical, stinky, crummy, bupkis, or hardcore fascist communist hybrid gay frog tactics. It’s not a violation of the first amendment
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, the first amendment has been used many times to force private corporations to respect the free speech rights of the individual. The first was against mining towns (mining companies purchased towns then kicked out all detractors) the second major series was against shopping malls (they banned religious recruitment and soliciting). Both were struck down on first amendment grounds because the test is "where can you talk to the most average people". To paraphrase you can't buy the townsquare then kick everyone you don't like out, and the more classes of people you let in, the less say you have. Social Media operates in the "let everyone in then ban them to sort out" sphere, constitutionally giving them the least 1st Amendment protection for it. The real problem is getting a case through to the Supreme Court since social media is new (thus hard to enforce until a decision is rendered) and their massive legal pockets, not the well tread constitutional 1A grounds.
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, the first ammendment also prevents private entities from censoring aswell. Aslong as it is considered a public platform the first amendment protects you.... or should.
-
@thrawnfett, respectfully, you are heavily misinterpreting those cases. Marsh v. Alabama set the precedent for freedom of speech concerning a private entity owning a town, and the Supreme Court has already thrown it out as precedent for a social media company (Facebook) censoring users. Pruneyard v. Robbins is closer, but it concerned peaceful expression (no “terms of services” were being violated) in a shopping mall. This doesn’t even include other cases that have set precedent such as Corp v. Halleck, as well as the fact that multiple courts have thrown out the idea of equating shopping malls with social media sites. There are no well tread constitutional 1A grounds. It’s just a fact. No freedom of speech rights were violated. The productive argument is whether this should change in the future, and change the application of this right
-
@CocoasBro, censoring is a broad term, but in this case and many like it, no it doesn’t. You hit it on the money though with the last 2 words. The argument needs to be whether it *should.* The argument of whether it *does* is closed, which is what I’m trying to convey
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, and with the Lowell corporate towns they were perfectly legal for awhile. Precedent emerges and changes as the constitutional burden changes and evolves. Nowadays especially with so many businesses gone, if I want to buy it I have no choice but to go online. These companies are using their power and consolidating it so that you have to go through THEM. Eventually, as of the trajectory now, they will succeed. As always, the courts will lag behind until the issue is undeniable, because they always prefer those answers emerge through legislation than judicial remedy. The path is there, clear, and within several precedents. The bigger question is when it will be forced to be walked.
-
@thrawnfett, you used the corporate towns as evidence of precedent, but it has already been thrown out as such during legislation. So I’m still not sure where “several precedents” is coming from. You’re simultaneously arguing that precedent is established and that precedent will emerge. You’re also now conflating two linked but separate issues. There’s a company’s ability to censor vs. a company’s domination over a market, which is now what you’re discussing. I also think that’s the bigger issue. I could see a path to change in either category, but as of now it’s completely baseless that anyone’s first amendment rights were violated
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, the space of a comment chain is not going to form fully fleshed ideas. The core point was that precedent has been used in similar situations, and can be used again. The second point is that they are intrinsically linked because the power is what gives them the ability to do damage, which will be what eventually brings judicial decisions. Damage needs to occur first for the judiciary to step in. And additional precedents have been set with both AOC and Trump ordered to unblock constituents on social media. It was determined that was the platform the constituents had the best access for address of grievences. By banning him while he was sitting, they inserted themselves and took away the ability of other citizens to receive a redress of grievance. Until the case happens and is resolved, playing accurate guessing games on what the final decision will contain is impossible, and they purposefully try not to take them, but there's many paths through to the result.
-
@thrawnfett, the points are intrinsically linked, sure, but they are two separate legal issues. That’s how it works. What “final decision” are you referring to? Nobody is going to come in and say Trump or anybody’s first amendment rights were violated. The examples you used aren’t precedent, and courts have thrown out those arguments. That’s not a guess. It is way more likely that their sphere of influence will be reduced than any decision regarding their removal of individuals
-
Imagine thinking there should be repercussions for disagreeing with another human being. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Imagine if i arrested your ass for making that statement and in response to your pleas for mercy i said " freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences." Authoritarians never imagined their own values used against them.
-
@CocoasBro, inb4 funny pics nuked from orbit by Amazon for hosting hate speech
-
@CocoasBro, that's always what keeps me away from following that line of thought. Yeah it would be cool if every stupid idiot that contribute to lowering the IQ of humanity were banned from platforms, but that would involve someone making that call. And could just lead to them either abusing the power, them having a stricter standard for what is okay, or me not being as good as I think I am, thus having that happen to myself. I hate it when people are like "I just wish God would purge all the bad people", and then talk about what they would do in a world where that happens. That's the only really extreme statement I agree with (I mean, if there is a God that is responsible for literally everything I wouldn't have an issue with him getting his way, as if I could even object), but I don't assume I would make it past that judgement
-
@CocoasBro, I agree with you when the government is an involved party, but they’re talking about getting fired from a private corporation for scaring away costumers, not for committing wrongthink. You should be allowed to have radical views legally, but I don’t have to be your friend or like you.
-
@Happybear, i disagree you should be able to hold even the most radical oppinions as lont as it doesnt come up at work.
-
@BrenadryI, i cant understand wanting to purge all the bad ideas either. Everyone should be able to speak their minds period even the stupid minds.
-
@Happybear, The point of a government should be to protect the rights of its citizens. The rights of a corporation should not take precedent over an individual’s. Though the example of an employee being rude to customers is different than someone spewing hate on their own time because being rude to customers could actually harm the company (not significantly, but still harm).
-
@CocoasBro, not all bad ideas, I guess I mean malicious people and things like that. But it really doesn't matter since there's not a single person we can trust to really go through with anything like that
-
@CocoasBro, The largest divide isn’t between left and right, it’s between authoritarians and libertarians.
-
@CocoasBro, you can have all the radical views you want. You just have to be willing to be have in the manner that your employer expects. If they want you to smile and be friendly then you can’t expect to be allowed to yell racial slurs. It’s pretty simple you can do whatever you want but your actions may result in people not wanting you around. Be they employers or friends and family.
-
@CocoasBro, “everyone should be allowed to speak their mind period”?!?... yea and those who want to scream about how a specific group should be killed in public or the guy who walks up to a girl and tells her she has to sleep with him for a promotion or to keep her job. They should not face any repercussions in your mind? What about the person who tells a random little kid terribly graphic stories that scar them for life or scream that they are going to follow them home and kill them should they face no consequence? Sure these are very extreme but you’re claiming that all radical views should be allowed period. Do you defend these people?
-
@CocoasBro, disagreeing is one thing. Actively thinking, preaching, and voting that people who aren’t like you shouldn’t exist is a whole other ballgame fvckwit
-
@Happybear, You are correct, freedom of speech doesn't apply to private corporations, you play by their rules or get fired, simple concept. Cocoas is a thick-skulled troglodyte who just wants to say whatever, whenever and then cry First Amendment, which only applies to government. He's a rebel without a cause😂. He also has an irrational fear of re-education camps 😂
-
@BrenadryI, on the God thing (at least as far as Judeo-Christian scripture is concerned) there is specific mentioning that all humanity is sinful (“bad”) but can be forgiven by God. So, based on actual scripture, anyone who says they hope for a purge of all “bad” (sinful) people, they themselves are included. I’ll leave it at that and forgo the lesson on Judaism’s path of atonement and Christianity’s path of forgiveness/redemption (i.e. salvation through faith).
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, your stupidity does not fail to appear at the very whiff of a political meme. I will give you credit for that. The suicidal ignorant bs you spew though, you don't get any credit for speaking. That credit goes to the communist dictators you gleefully follow without question.
-
@spongeblade, You don't have any say in which memes I respond to so piss off, you've already proven yourself to be an annoying, worthless adversary, so toodles to you, small shrimp, you're just the sweaty, farting Rudy Guiliani of our FP fam and everyone knows it. 😂
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, your stupidity shows yet again! I did not even imply that I believe you can't comment or that I decide. (Though its understandable as you've said on other occasions that you yourself believe some people shouldn't be allowed to speak). In fact, I steadfastly support your right to comment, even if its spewing horrifying idiotic crap. And thank for for honoring me by comparing me to the man that took down the fricken mafia. That's epic!
-
@spongeblade, You're welcome, at least I didn't tell everyone about what you do to sheep when you're not playing with the big-boys in FP. Your sexual proclivities with farm animals is our little secret😂
-
@Chifilo, therein lies the pragmatic argument. If I were to say that the words you just said caused harm, by your very own logic then, you have caused violence and are deserving of adequate recompense. But surely, my words here can be said to threaten harm to you. It's an ouroboros. As inconvenient as it might be, the rational answer seems to be not to ban speech, but to be rather extremist in support of free speech.
-
@George Feeny, I think the left should be able to speak their mind without being killed thank you very much no matter how evil and racist the things they believe are. No one should be harmed for believing something different even if they want something vile and disgusting. We are a civilized society and we talk out our disagreements.
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, lmao an irrational fear of re-education camps. Imagine thinking re-education camps are something you shouldnt be afraid of.
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, leave it to you to make up some weird creepy thing you do and project it onto somebody else. I hope you find a brain at some point.
-
@spongeblade, Hey, it's not my fault you have a tiny penis, I only know cuz one of the sheep complained. Something tells me it's a pretty common complaint about you. But don't worry, size doesn't matter. Oh who am I kidding... yes it does😂
-
@CocoasBro, Shoo! Nobody was talking to you! QAnon called, they want their extreme paranoia back.
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, paranoia? You literally told me you want re-education camps.
-
@CocoasBro, No, I said you need to re-up you medication, Gramps! Geeze, he does this every time he skips a lithium dose, see what we're dealing with, folks? Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs🤪
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, youre a very sad pathetic person. I genuinely pity you you must live such a pathetic existence. I hope you never breed for the sake of humanity.
-
@spongeblade, shes genuinely retarded. It is interesting to see someone actrually embody stupidity incarnate though.
-
@CocoasBro, I was just trying to lighten things up, I can tell you're a mentally-fragile person with limited intellectual abilities and a defensiveness that stems from obvious issues with authority. You're a stuck pig in the stakes of an unrealized life and you're acting out, I get that. So take a deep breath and repeat: "It's only the comments section of a meme app..."
-
@BrenadryI, like i said i disagree with censorship in any form period. Even of bad malicious people.
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, yeah im not going to sink to your level. You clearly are not an intelligent individual so repeat after me " Other people should be allowed to have different oppinions than you and thats okay."
-
@CocoasBro, Right, because I'm on the Censorship Committee of FP and suppressing comments, thus not allowing different opinions. Dude, you need a serious reality check, you're on the comments section of a meme app. Stuck Pixel is not only monitoring comments, they are responding to comments they deem violates their TOS, and they are banning people. This is a cold hard fact and, if you don't like it, uninstall the app, because you're just as liable to be banned than any one of us. There is no freedom of speech here, which makes you an absolute hypocrite with your anti-censorship rhetoric, on this app or any social media app that you use. You don't see me whining about others not allowing me to have an opinion, that's up to Stuck Pixel on what I can and can't say and that goes for you too, so deal.
-
@Mistyblue Ghost, "You need a reality check" screeches the girl who not 1 day ago was screaming about how trump is a secret russian asset, and how when he asked protestors to be peaceful he was secretly telling them to riot and how Donald Trump was going to take over America and dont forget all Trump supporters need to be put into re-education camps. Your absolutely divorced from reality and basic basic coherent thought at this point. Have a nice life crazy lady.
-
@CocoasBro, Get over yourself, everyone knows Trump amassed his brainwashed cult and incited a riot to attack the Capitol. And yes Trump supporters need de-programmed, absolutely, under Biden's healthcare plan, not going to deny I said that. And I'll say it again. The brainwashed masses under Trump's regime need to have their brains rewired and Biden's got just the healthcare plan under which they can carry out their little "vacation" before returning to society as normal, productive, non-rioting American citizens. However, you, crazy pants, belong in the psych ward for a medication adjustment, you clearly have untreated mental issues.
-
@Needless Contrarian, FP is hosted by aws? Seems like every site, or at least the cdn, is on aws these days.
-
@Russian Hawkeye, yeah that totally makes sense, honestly. I forgot to mention it in my previous messages, but I'm nearly certain that I would be included in that "purge" for having that mindset. Me thinking like that doesn't make me much different than the "you're gonna go to hell for xyz" people (or, taking it upon yourself to cast judgement).
-
@CocoasBro, when did I mention anything about killing? I am saying people who behave like how I mentioned in my comments (essentially in a threatening or intentionally disturbing manner) should face the consequences such as being fired, told to leave or jail time depending on the exact circumstances
-
@CocoasBro, hell I even do agree that killing someone for speaking out is wrong. I am pretty sure most people feel that way. That said speaking out and threatening others are two different things. Some think the freedom of speech protects their rights to outright threaten others. I disagree with that thought personally as all rights listed in the bill of rights are only granted up till they infringe on the rights of others. It sounds like you’re talking about people speaking out against the government and that should be allowed. Sure I can agree with that as long as they aren’t the ones that were litterally part of a riot like the pro trumpers who attacked the capital I agree. The issue though is employers have the right to terminate an associate and they can always find a valid reason so it’s impossible to truly prove they were fired due to stating their opinions. As such while I agree it should be protected I would urge people to be careful what they say or do while working
-
@George Feeny, no one should be put in jail for advocating for bad positions or even discrimination... if we did that almost all democrats would be in jail right now. I am a free speech absolutist so i dont even want the neo nazis or the far left communists censored. No matter how awful what they want is. Though there are legal lines in order to ensure freedom of speech for all.
-
@CocoasBro, Except that arresting a person implies you are acting as some sort of law enforcement, therefore an agent of some sort of government, local or federal, and are, in fact, violating 1A rights. A better example would be, well, the one in the pic, if someone enters a private establishment and begins spewing drivel that the owner doesn't like, the owner can tell them to leave. They cannot tell the person that they can't say whatever it is, only that they cannot say it on their property, as is their right
-
@Aegis,People can be arrsted for making threats or telling a person to do certain actions. These exceptions should be applied exceedingly rarely and only when the violation crosses the line to an egregious degree. If that private entity is considered by law to be a platform for the public to speak and in doing so grants them certain immunities to lawsuits that other entities would not recieve on the basis that they do not discriminate and start acting as a publisher. If the platforms that control 90% of the human communication, and basically the entirety of the internet start censoring based on political alignment like they are we WILL go to a one party state. If one party or branch simply CANNOT get their message out to the public that movement will die. When you make it impossible to make change peacefully you make violent change inevitable.
-
@CocoasBro, well that’s cool and I respect your idea that even those truly awful people should be afforded the same rights but again it’s worth mentioning that the bill of rights only protects you up till you infringe on someone else. So while I respect your views they aren’t constitutional so I don’t think it will take off. Especially since part of the limitations of the free speech is a protection of children being exposed. If you allow everyone to post what they want with absolution it would protect people who post inappropriate images of children. Since free speech covers images shared online you would be supporting the idea that it should be allowed. I know that is hugely extreme but it’s worth noting the side affects something that sounds great like absolute free speech. Too much free speech is a truly awful thing.
-
@George Feeny, key phrase i whole heartedly agree with. And couldnt have put it better myself. It protects you until it you infringe on someone else's. Child porn is illegal because it violates others freedom, therefore it is constitutional to censor it. However advocating that child porn should be legal does not ( and while extremely vile i cant stress enough how much pedophiles disgust me and my personal oppinion is that they should all be executed) is constitutional and legal, and has to remain constitutional if we are to have a free society.
-
I'm scared that the comment section here is the most intelligent thing I have read on the internet today. ,
-
If I was able to, the customers around me wouldn’t exist. I would just ignore you and maybe turn as if a gentle breeze went by
-
Well no, it technically is, everyone can technically speak freely no matter where they are on earth, for example Jim Carrey has every right to be, putting it nicely and incorrectly, a critic of the Trump administration and he is still rich, famous, and probably healthy. Jack Ma had all the ability to be a critic of Xi and his communist party, and he’s probably dead or in a re-education camp. The presence of those repercussions is what makes speech free or not.
-
A-Fücking-Men
-
Sometimes I wish we could say it. Ppl can get really mean just because they know we can’t talk back. I know I bend over backwards for customer service and some ppl are still never happy. I couldn’t find someone’s order once and they told me I was useless, didn’t deserve my discount, stupid, etc. turns out they gave me the wrong order name. And I just said it’s okay.
-
Legal consequences, yes, it protects you from them. Social consequences, no
-
Twitter is a service provided by a private organization, not a right. You are not entitled to the right to use privately provided services. If you want to either have a public platform with similar capabilities in which free speech would be protected or to change how the first amendment is interpreted to be applied to private services, that is another question.
-
Fair, but you should be able to freely talk about your beliefs in a non-demeaning way without repercussions...
-
$20 says this guy would be suicidal if his Twitter was banned.
“Repercussions” ≠ Persecution