Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

There is a lot of weird shit about speech.For instance, hate speech, why are people not allowed to hate things and express that? You should NEVER call for violence against anyone by a mob. Just a weird thing, like if Catholics hate Protestants why can't they say it? Or Jews hates Mexicans, or someone hates celebrities, or politicians, why can't people voice that CONSTITUTONALLY

 

As long as no one calls for violence, I would think it should be covered. Now violent hate speech is different.

 

As to Alex Jones they are a private corporation so whatever.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of restriction on speech being we want to prevent crime and create a somewhat peaceful society. So you can't slander someone and expect to not suffer legal repercussions for it. If you incite a riot, your speech is essentially causing property damage, and other mischief related charges, so it makes sense for the law to punish in that regard. Hate speech leads to hate crimes, so it's a legal necessity to seek punishment for that. And so on and so forth. If something would unravel the harmony of society, the law will punish it by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point, but shouldn't we only prosecute people when something happens that ISNT constitutionally protected? I just think it's odd we can prosecute you with government entities when it says you can in the Constitution.

 

I really don't care in the sense I think we should all say hateful things. Just to kind of point out what an odd place speech is in. It really is a weird thing honestly. It is extremely complicated, and I am not sure it should be ?

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, communication is one of the most complex and bullshit things about life. Speech law is exactly as complicated as speech itself is. As for the constitution, that's why they have so many amendments, because the founding fathers weren't perfect people, and the law needs to be fluid to adapt to changing times.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what is interesting about the Constitution is how some people will Hardline something and not another. The amendments are good, but I don't think they have made it constitutionally illegal, so it should be. Again, I am fine with it not, it is just such a hard topic (speech) that you almost have to go to extremes just for simplicity. Then again, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People fight for hate groups to assemble and peacefully demonstrate all the time. The ACLU has done it countless times. I bet some of the lawyers for ACLU were Jewish or black or latino but believe in free speech and know that theirs could be next on the chopping block. We can't allow these technocrats to control speech. Not as plugged in as everyone is. I don't want the flow of information to be concentrated even more. The internet was the last free haven for journalism. This is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is ironic, because the internet killed journalism in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The telecommunications act killed journalism my dude. Thanks Bill Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're still pretending that Alex Jones didn't encourage people to harass the parents of kids that were killed?

 

Even if the first amendment applied to twitter (again, it doesn't), Alex Jones' speech isn't constitutionally protected anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it was constitutionally protected? I'm not even sure somebody said he should not have been banned....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean is saying jones should sue them all to get his accounts back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Sean is saying that Alex Jones is breaking the law when he encourages violence so he should be prosecuted and sued in a court of law. IN A COURT OF LAW. Not silenced by some technocrat billionaire overlord. Alex Jones isn't the only person that's been de-platformed and will not be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see if you wanted to bring charges against the guy, he definitely has at the very least been too few rules, and completely shattered ethical practice in journalism. If you can call the guy a journalist.

 

That said I am with you, I can't stand Facebook, and I can't stand that rat-faced ass hat that runs it. That being said, all of those companies are private entities. How can you say that they should be forced to give him back his standing on those platforms?

 

I certainly understand the argument that it sets a dangerous precedent of having new sensor, but this is what America needs to expect better of itself in my opinion. If you were lies directly on Facebook to get you information, and you don't absorb information, analyze it, and form your own opinions then it is your fault for being intellectually lazy. Now that is just one man's opinion, so do with it what you wish.

 

I was also a supporter of Alex Jones, or at least what I thought he stood for up until the Sandy Hook thing. I think in a sense that Rogue journalists are absolutely needed, because they're the ones that aren't afraid to say the ridiculous things, but every once in a gun, ridiculous things happen. And those ridiculous things that do happen should be information we're allowed to digest. That being said he kind of debased himself of all credibility, it would be a lot like getting your news from The National Enquirer. If you actually believe that Tom Cruise has six Dix, we're in a very very troubled spot.

 

Along with the hate speech questions I had, this is another prime example of how speech is gotten weird. I 100% agree that we should have freedom of speech from the government, and we should be allowed to say almost anything we want so long as it doesn't incite violence. And what I mean by incite violence, is the one who is saying the terrible things, should be allowed to say them, just so long as they don't call for deliberate and direct action. In this case, however, at what point do you try to regain the validity of information?

 

If we're going to rely on journalism for our information, then should they're not at least be some safeguards to make sure that if you are registered as a news organization, that you follow certain practices? Or better yet if you defend yourself from criticism, saying I'm a journalist, then you should be held to a certain set of Standards should you not?

 

I'm aware that those two statements are contradictory, it's not hard to see. Saying we should be allowed to say anything we want, but then saying there are safeguards, I know it's not the most ideal situation in terms of a debate. That being said, that really kind of illustrates my point, in that speech is one of those things that are ridiculously hard to try to control without infringing upon people's rights in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Sean is saying that Alex Jones is breaking the law when he encourages violence so he should be prosecuted and sued in a court of law. IN A COURT OF LAW. Not silenced by some technocrat billionaire overlord. Alex Jones isn't the only person that's been de-platformed and will not be the last.

He has been sued. And yeah I'd love it if he saw jail time for what he did. There are issues with twitter banning people for lousy at best reasons, but why die on the hill of Alex Jones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's the thing. It's Alex Jones now, which everyone can agree he is a dick. What happens when it is someone else and they have established they can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard this on Joe Rogan, but what about the idea of obliterating YouTube and Facebook? They’re practically monopolies and the idea is that they should be public utilities

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that one. Ironically enough they talked about deplatforming Alex Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard this on Joe Rogan, but what about the idea of obliterating YouTube and Facebook? Theyre practically monopolies and the idea is that they should be public utilities

Nationalizing them is a much more interesting topic, and also the least-libertarian thing I can think of. Not to mention given that they're websites, I don't know if it'd be possible since they could just move to another country. Technically the US government could force ICANN to seize the domains (though apparently maybe not as it looks like they stopped directly being part of the US government in 2016), but that would probably be the end of the internet as we know it.

Edited by blotsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every point I bring up for discussion has to be purely Linertarian in nature nor do I have to support every single thing I bring to the table merely for discussion.

 

Like I said, was just listening to a podcast and really the immense power sites like YouTube and Facebook have. And like Sean said... they are able to enact punishments swiftly without real due process. Being a private institution and effective monopolies, they really can be judge jury and executioner.

 

As was said in the podcast... What is Alex Jones going to do? Go to the other YouTube ?

 

No such thing exists. Their hold is really immense and kind of scary how they can funnel different ideas to people, remove other ideas....

 

If you dont like what biased FOX news says you can go watch CNN. If you dont like the politics YouTube or Facebook hold you either put up with it or dont participate. There is no Option B to push Youtube/Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YouTube is far less regulated than tv networks in terms of what you can and can't say. It's not particularly close. The FCC places heavy regulation on what can and can't be said.

 

I just find it interesting that what gets you to go from "free market is the best, Ron Paul 2016" to "the government should nationalize private industry soviet-style" is Alex freaking Jones being kick off a platform.

 

I'm not saying I even disagree. That'd just such a hard-left stance to take.

Edited by blotsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individual rights>>>>>corporate rights. All kinds of companies and industries follow rules and regulations. There should be a legal process to restrict speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I find it interesting that so many people who were in favor of the bakery being allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple suddenly are upset that a company is allowed to choose to deny someone service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference being that there are dozens of bakeries in Lakewood Colorado. Competition and options will drive customers to other bakeries. Youtube has no such competition.

 

Different still youre talking about a small local company / owner to a massive media conglomerate made up of billionaires, political interference, and dirty money.

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference being that there are dozens of bakeries in Lakewood Colorado. Competition and options will drive customers to other bakeries. Youtube has no such competition.

 

Different still youre talking about a small local company / owner to a massive media conglomerate made up of billionaires, political interference, and dirty money.

When I posited that there could be small towns with just one bakery or other business, i was told that it was not relevant.

 

Not to mention that there are other video hosting sites, such as dailymotion. Or Alex Jones can pay for his own video hosting. Google doesn't have to subsidize his website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he could always put his videos up on pornhub

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×