 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 29 Apr 22 - 07:23 PM Easy big fella, you are removing all doubt. I am not the issue nor do I insist upon my honorific name t'would put you to shame. cartoon: Thats not the way we do things in these parts maam. You need to footnote thoughts and deeds, index any possible sources, bend over backwards and wear a hat. Naturally if you must talk, continue through your hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Apr 22 - 06:32 PM You quoted stuff that looked like yours but which wasn't, and you didn't give the credit. That is not how we do things here and yes it matters. It's a question of honesty, mate. It would have been easy for you to give the credits but you didn't bother. Please don't try to circumvent that with sidetracking abuse. I accept all facts that can be corroborated and every post I've ever posted here would confirm that if you'd bother to check. And yes, I do "believe" in a higher power than courts. Please consider what some of your courts have recently achieved via voting and abortion, to mention but two. As long as we can embrace the concept of our all exercising and showing kindness and restraint to our fellow humans, we do not need courts to tell us how to think and what to say in public. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 29 Apr 22 - 06:15 PM Who cares that you will not accept facts? I'll tell you there are people who care and believe if one is not whole the rest of us will not be whole, if one of us is broken we can not be mended until we are all mended. Thats too idealistic and cultish for my taste. We can rid ourselves of delusion with effort and support. Usually it is the delusion of fear and being attacked all the time. Sufferers naturally blame the other when it is 99% likely the fault is inside the sufferer. Frankly my dear I don't give a damn. About free speech I am speaking of the facts maam, just the facts. You may believe in a higher power than law and the court and that would be protected religious speech. Ironic eh? Since 1990 the court allowed me to wear underweaar featuring the American flag. Prior to then it would have been a crime. Here on mudcat protected symbolic free speech applies to all song lyrics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Apr 22 - 03:28 PM Some of your post consists of unattributed quotes. You may think that free speech is up to the courts, but I can't agree with that unless it's seriously qualified. The courts can decide whether your speech was hate speech or designed to threaten or intimidate. But if we could ever solve the conundrum of what is acceptable or what isn't, we need people, not the word of judges, to embrace a sense of responsibility. Relying on courts to do that for us is just an abject admission of failure. Bottom line: if you think you can say anything at all about anyone or anything, whenever and wherever you like, you are embracing immorality, not to speak of unkindness to your fellow humans. That should be the challenging starting point in any discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 29 Apr 22 - 02:53 PM The fundamentals and definition of free speech in the USA is up to the court. In the USA what is protected speech is either political free speech or religious free speech. There are exceptions even there in the where and what as in a protest that is violent as in the Capitol building. Symbolic free speech is protected; In 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances. Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination -- and that is unconstitutional. When a protest crosses the line from speech to action, the government can intervene more aggressively. Political protesters have the right to picket, to distribute literature, to chant and to engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances or to physically harass people. Unprotected speech includes commercial catagories that are numerous. Citizens subject to fraud and other crimes are assisted by the judicial department but it is a never ending cat and mouse game between the cops and robbers. Again I bring up John Stuart Mills who claimed that true free speech must include the bad speech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Apr 22 - 08:14 PM It's not so black and white, Jeri. Free speech is a cherished concept, but there are a number of bottom lines. It's very hard to define them in a way that would not antagonise at least some people. They are all up for discussion, but they include hate speech, racist speech, anti-gay/transgender speech, religious bigotry speech (I may have missed some out). Every one of those categories has shades that we'll never get universal agreement about. Difficult to define is dead right. In my view we should adopt the principle of doing least harm to people, and accepting that with freedom comes responsibility. Untrammelled is a dirty word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 28 Apr 22 - 08:01 PM Thats not to say Ben Franklin was not vocal, particularly in print. bile-ventors.com DO NOT GO HERE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Jeri Date: 28 Apr 22 - 07:57 PM We don't have laws against "hate speech" in the USA, so we'll see how it goes. Incitement is another matter. More than "hate speech" which I would think is difficult to define. I worry about lies, AKA "fake news". Not the fake news that's called that because some right-wing loon doesn't like it, but the outright made-up things. It used to be the liberal folks were the ones who argued FOR free speech, and now, they're the ones worried about what will happen if folks have free speech. I believe the main reason is that people used to be able to identify lies, and these days, they can't, or won't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Apr 22 - 07:46 PM Gosh, do feel free to be defensive! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 28 Apr 22 - 07:45 PM cartoon: "Its good to see boys settle their differences on social media with legitimate misinterpretation and character assasination" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Rapparee Date: 28 Apr 22 - 07:41 PM If you were to state to my face that I engage my Oedipal impulses with a female dog, you should be prepared to bear the consequences of your statement. Likewise, if you rant about overthrowing the established government you should be prepared to take whatever consequences result from your rant (established governments don't like to be overthrown). Consequences to speech can range from being ignored to a black eye to imprisonment to execution. Benjamin Franklin, who never fired a shot during the American Revolution, had it correct when he said, "We must all hang together or we must all hang separately." If you can't take the heat, keep your words inside yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 28 Apr 22 - 07:28 PM Do you claim ownership and ultimate definition judgeship? Knock down? Do I sense more than a twinge of hostility? Why? A prior thread on free speech was friendlier. Friend or not, feel better soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Apr 22 - 06:02 PM Well I'm not sure that you know what sarcasm is. I didn't detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in his post. If nothing else I appreciate a careful and measured response in a thread that I've started. I might have different perspectives on one or two of his points but the post was good and solid. So easy to do a big knock-down with a lazy remark... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 28 Apr 22 - 05:26 PM Saul's sarcasm may go over some heads but we will see coming legislation as soon as this month. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Apr 22 - 03:56 PM "Very few people are allowed (or wish) to post here." Anyone in the world can post here as long as they are registered as a member. In an area which can get very contentious, and in which anonymity is still allowed, I think that's a very sane approach. I do think that anonymity is a massive problem on social media and internet forums. At the very least, the owners of the forum should know who's posting, even posters are using usernames that are not their real names. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Apr 22 - 03:48 PM Well I like Saul's post. It's a valuable contribution to the debate. I think he's saying that this a complicated area... More than just that, of course. Yes, Raindog, the Guardian can seem to be arbitrary. It often doesn't have a comments section below articles that you might have thought should have one. The "community standards" comment you refer to is standard for removed comments. We don't get to see the removed posts. There is no debate with the moderators. The comments threads are very time-limited. There are many on the go at any one time and I suppose that the Guardian, whilst promoting lively debate, doesn't see itself primarily as as a form of mainstream social media. Not only that, it's a NEWSpaper. Topics can go out of date very quickly whilst new ones crop up in that environment. Mudcat isn't the same kind of beast at all. Anyway, the community standards are easily accessed for you to read. As here, if you don't like the methods of moderation, you don't have to post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 28 Apr 22 - 03:42 PM Legislation will soon hold Facebook etc. accountable. Social Media speech business has a respondsibility for their product imo. The 1st ammendment does not allow the government to limit your speech (they have other means anyway). Free speech on private property is not guaranteed by anyone! Mudcat is still in the white male property owner catagory for BS comments. Very few people are allowed (or wish) to post here. Perhaps people are misguided when it comes to their proposed new 'free' speech rules enforced by the government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 28 Apr 22 - 01:21 PM I probably do not quite understand what Saul is saying/asking but that's ok. I think I agree with him. Esp that last sentence!! Not everyone: knows that words hurt; which words hurt which people; why it might be better to not hurt people -too much? or deliberately? or mindlessly? No hope for the mindless, we just have to live with them... or not. It is good to recognize when to be silent; "It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". I worked with a child who was a "selective mute"; It would seem that something happened - someone said something to him? Did something to him? - in nursery school. He talked a blue streak at home but not a word in school -- His second year in Kindergarten with the same wonderful teacher and the support and encouragement of many, he broke through! The use of words could/should? be viewed as a big responsibility. In a fit of annoyance because my work shoes were not where I left them and I had to make lunch in my rubber boots, I muttered, "If you don't expect anything, you won't be disappointed!" Found out much later that a dear friend overheard me and thought I was referring to a relationship he was working on! So, what words? spoken where? and when? to whom? And, can we ever know for sure if our words will help or harm...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: saulgoldie Date: 28 Apr 22 - 12:11 PM There are two parts to free speech. First part is the *what* of the speech. The second is the *where* part. So, should people be allowed to say any bloody thing they want? Should there be legal consequences for saying certain things? Now, if someone is standing on the sidewalk shouting And that is the second part: where, and by what means. Megaphone? electric amplification? In front of what audience? An audience that chooses to be there? A room full of students who are required to be there? An auditorium that is financed with public tax dollars? Radio waves that are, theoretorically owned by "everyone?" Telephone lines? Internet resources, such as social media? I have my own favorite notions. I mean, obviously, noone should yell "Theatre" in a crowded fire. Obviously. But what constitutes hate speech, or lies, or if anyone should necessarily have access to what resources and under what circumstances, that is the question. I am supremely confident that the powers that be will make decisions that are at least somewhat wrong, mostly wrong, or maybe totally wrong. I have confidence. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: leeneia Date: 28 Apr 22 - 11:55 AM Remember Yahoo? Once it was the go-to search engine. Now it's rarely spoken of. Me, I would never invest serious money in a venture that implodes if stuck with a pin. Twitter, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Mrrzy Date: 28 Apr 22 - 10:21 AM I was once threatened by a lambchop-wielding pubgoer for not agreeing that India and China were causing pollution but Murrica wasn't... But I still go to pubs and chat with folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Rain Dog Date: 28 Apr 22 - 09:20 AM Why does The Guardian (along with so many other papers) allow members of the public to post their opinions on some, not all, items on their web pages? The Guardian does not appear to allow it in order to make money from advertising. I have only seen adverts for other Guardian products. Perhaps they are unable to attract advertisers to their pages. I did ask earlier about advertising on Twitter. Is there a lot of it or does Twitter make money from selling their data? Here are 2 comments from the thread on The Guardian which Steve mentioned. "The Guardian is quite selective about what is allowed to be expressed btl." And "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs." I am one of that dying breed that still goes to the pub. I will engage in conversation with people whose opinions are completely different from mine. I don't stop them expressing their opinions but I will tell them why I don't agree with them. People mentioned bullying behaviour in that Guardian thread. I have said before that I find elements of that on the UK Politics thread here on mudcat. Some members post stuff which I cannot imagine them saying to their friends, assuming of course that they have friends who hold different views to their own. Increasingly it seems that people on the web/net, only want to swap posts with like minded individuals. Heaven forbid that they should have to skim a post containing views different from their own, let alone read it. Now I am not in favour of total, unregulated free speech. I just think that it is not as easy to police it as some think. I don't have the answer to that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 28 Apr 22 - 06:47 AM The 'free speech for me but not for thee' folks are on the right and left. Shouting down and intimidation usually works so there is alot of shouting going on. Like children there has to be adult disciplinary actions from time to time. Social media says its too expensive for them to do that disciplinary work. I don't know but maybe Elon will do the respondsible thing be it Twitter jail or other means to safeguard speech and people. Acceptance of hate speech has gone up to 47% in the Republican party. Censorship is not the answer I'm looking for. It is a more diciplinary approach like on Mudcat that seems to work. Earning the right of participation is a good motivating force as we see. It ain't cheap but Mudcat is a good teaching example for the big companies imo. So where will the people who just want to vent bile go? BileVentors.com! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Apr 22 - 05:11 AM There's an interesting debate going on (possibly closed by now) in the comments section after a Guardian opinion piece ("The Guardian view on Twitter: when free speech costs a bomb"). Here are two of the comments with which I agree. ‘Free speech’ would be great if anybody actually used it. Racists, sexists, homophobes, and the rest only express their racist, sexist, homophobic comments directly in their safe spaces. Unable to articulate a rational argument or analysis for grossly oppressive politics, ‘free speech’ is the lie they tell themselves. What a turnaround from the idealism of the ‘free speech’ movement to its current proponents advocating book-banning, curriculum-regulation and no-platforming alternative outlooks. Populism has really messed up the free speech debate....... .......Like so many principles, Free Speech has been turned from its original intent to become one to enable abuse and retain dominant positions of the powerful and wealthy. Rather than being able to say what you like, the idea free speech was intended to allow free debate and discussion without interference. All we have now is people who feel enabled to say the worst things they can, and who then will not engage in discussion (not that most people are willing to change their mind, or have been given the educational opportunities to learn critical thinking skills). Its even more laughable that we have such people defending 'free speech' whilst banning books, and preventing people from talking about racism, sexism, transphobia, gay rights, or anything else which threatens the straight white man's grasp on power. As always, its one rule for the powerful, another for those they oppress. Plenty to chew over there. So free speech untrammelled is great down the pub, or in your cosy circle, or expressed under the shield of internet anonymity. But go large and you may be trampling on the rights of free speech of those you regard as not in your personal mainstream (so not straight white men then...?). Not only that, I can't imagine many advertisers wanting to see their copy next to Holocaust-denying, gay and trans-bashing, racist or anti-vax polemic... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Apr 22 - 05:51 PM Misquote me all you like. I'm used to that here. I don't recognise your alternative version as any more valid than mine, but of course, you're entitled to state it. The basic point about disagreeing on an internet forum, as far as I'm concerned, is that you validate your disagreement with an alternative argument. So far, you haven't managed to put that. As it happens, I embrace the concept of free speech and I abhor the ban on free speech in undemocratic countries such as Russia. But untrammelled free speech, aka say what you like no matter how hurtful, bigoted or inflammatory, is morally deficient. Any freedoms we have in democracies must always be tempered by our responsibilities to others. That means no hate speech, no racist speech, no incitement to threats against people, no speech to make people feel afraid. If you don't get that, then you're a bit like Trump, in other words, you don't really get democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Rain Dog Date: 27 Apr 22 - 12:07 PM To misquote Steve Shaw, should it be "Beware the man or woman who bleats about their "free speech" being threatened. Generally, they have something to say which I disagree with." I am not a member of twitter but do look at some twitter streams/pages. Recently they have introduced a limit as to how many tweets i can look at. It is now just the 6 most recent tweets per page. I have not noticed any advertising. How does avertising work on twitter member's pages? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 27 Apr 22 - 11:54 AM Housewife answers the door to a man with a clipboard. "Yes?" "Madam, do you believe in freedom of speech?" "Yes, I do." "Can I use your phone, then?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Apr 22 - 08:30 PM No it is not the same as mine, not remotely, in the sense that he has a platform that I don't have. Make your mind up as to whether he deserves that just because he's mega-rich. Or pop stars or film stars because they happen to be handsome or have talents that are nothing to do with being knowledgeable, erudite, learned or wise. Or because you're Bob Geldof. I have freedom of speech here on Mudcat, but if I don't exercise restraint or show that my freedom to say what I like is tempered by my responsibility to be kind, never hateful or hurtful or threatening, I'll be deleted, banned or, at best, given a good bollocking. In microcosm, that reflects the way the world should be, in m'humble. Beware the man or woman who bleats about their "free speech" being threatened. Generally, they have something horrible to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Donuel Date: 26 Apr 22 - 07:36 PM Is a multi billionaire's freedom of speech the same as yours? Regarding hateful; nationalist, mysoginistic, sexist, racist, authoritarian, violent speech I hope Elon makes a backdoor for the FBI. Could 46 Billion dollars be better spent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Apr 22 - 05:59 PM From a piece in the Guardian: The UK and EU have warned that Twitter must comply with new content rules or face sanctions that range from fines to a total ban, as concerns were raised that hate speech will increase on the platform under the ownership of Elon Musk. The world’s richest man has agreed a $44bn (£34bn) deal to buy the social media network, which will hand control of a platform with 217 million users to a self-confessed “free speech absolutist”. A UK government spokesperson said companies must adhere to the forthcoming online safety bill, which requires platforms to protect users from harmful content, or face the threat of large fines and, for repeat offenders, a total ban. “Twitter and all social media platforms must protect their users from harm on their sites. We are introducing new online safety laws to safeguard children, prevent abusive behaviour and protect free speech. All tech firms with users in the UK will need to comply with the new laws or face hefty fines and having their sites blocked.” Thierry Breton, the EU’s commissioner for the internal market, reminded the Tesla chief executive on Tuesday that he would have to comply with the newly agreed Digital Services Act, which requires online platforms to tackle illegal content such as hate speech. Well let's see what his lighter-touch moderation actually means. He might want "free speech", but he may not get the free rein that he lusts after. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Apr 22 - 03:03 PM I agree - Trump can't resist the place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Apr 22 - 11:19 AM > Apparently Trump has said he won't use Twitter even if he is > reinstated. And you believe him? ring the bell, and he'll salivate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Apr 22 - 11:17 AM Thank yourself, Steve Shaw! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Raggytash Date: 26 Apr 22 - 10:39 AM Apparently Trump has said he won't use Twitter even if he is reinstated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Apr 22 - 10:10 AM The huge test for Twitter users, and the world, will be of Trump continues to be banned. Or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Doug Chadwick Date: 26 Apr 22 - 09:26 AM Oh. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Apr 22 - 09:25 AM Elon Musk! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Doug Chadwick Date: 26 Apr 22 - 08:57 AM So he's bought Twitter .... Who has? DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The free-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Apr 22 - 08:30 AM Sorry about that. My fat finger clicked the wrong button before I'd done my edit. But you get the point! |
|
Subject: BS: Thefree-speech absolutist strikes From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Apr 22 - 08:29 AM So he's bought Twitter and is going to decimate whatever moderation it "enjoys." Well it's already a cesspit, so thank God I steer clear. |