Propaganda - and Social Media - and Free Speech

Censoring profanity is one thing. Censoring ideas and beliefs is another.

 

Nothing you wrote above is worthy of a meaningful response.

Simple question: How does "social media" violate your free speech rights as you claim? Please be specific.

 

Of course racial slurs are free speech.

 

So what are racial slurs if not free speech?

 

It is a game by Parker Brothers. It is when an individual entity controls all the means for a defined type of business and there can be no competition. We do have racketeering laws.

 

Who will decide what profanity to censor -- you?

 

Racial slurs are profanity? No they are ideas. They tell as much about the speaker as the one identified. Even profanity often wins acception. Mixed family crowds are now explaining F--- Biden!

 

I will decide what words get the #$%@ symbols. Based on what I wouldn't want my child to hear. I trust the viewers to have an imagination.

 

I know what a monopoly is: I was asking you in the context of your post what entity you believe is a monopoly.

As racketeering laws typically do not apply to monopolies, I'm sure you meant to say the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

 

Racial slurs are absolutely free speech. If anyone wants to test my correct argument that social media is incapable of violating free speech rights, they can post a string of racial slurs here on this board and see how long it takes for them to get banned.

The state may not infringe on the citizen's free speech... says so right in the Bill of Rights. A private party? Such as Political Forum or Facebook? They have rules to which the user must agree in exchange for access to the service. Break the rules and they have total discretion to ban the user --- temporarily or until the end of time.

Some people have mistakenly argued that social media has an obligation to give platform to anyone who wants it. I find it ironic that many of these people espouse the principles of "limited government" under other circumstances buy go crying to the government nanny when they run afoul of the terms they agreed to as a condition of voluntarily posting on a website.

 

Facebook for one is a monopoly. Trump had how many millions of followers ? They shut him down due to his principles and there is no place to go in the cyber media. They are at a point new media needs to intervene but they shut down any competition.

 

1. Bad Orangeman could have easily launched his own social media platform with his "biyions" of dollars.
2. Facebook is hardly a monopoly, it just happens to be a very succesful player, having blazed a trail in a new frontier. They are at the forefront of our third industrial revolution.
3. But for the sake of argumrnt let's pretend FB is a monopoly as you claim: What is your proposed remedy? And how does such remedy create your desired redult? And what is your desired result? You may wish to consult Sherman before answering.

 

So what is murder if not "Liberty" Life - Liberty - pursuit of happiness - Figure out what the difference is and you will have your answer.

 

Say folks who think Murder is "Liberty" - Life - Liberty - Pursuit of happiness. - and they are wrong as well.

 

Your analysis fails for want of wit.

The Constitution is a contract between you and the federal government and me and the federal government, but there is no contract between you and I.

My house; my rules. On my turf you got no Free Speech, Religion, Press or Right of Assembly. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply. I can search you whenever I freaking feel like it and without a warrant and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Except leave.

The Constitution is a contract between the federal government and "the big Social Media Giants" but it is not a contract between you and "the big Social Media Giants."

Their house; their rules. They can do whatever they want.

I'm not shocked that your 10th Grade Government teacher failed to explain that to you, because they probably didn't understand it, either.

If your bowels are in an uproar of "the big Social Media Giants" then you are free to not patronize them. You are also free to not patronize the products and services offered on those platforms. You are also free to organize boycotts and "blackouts" (where nobody uses them) of "the big Social Media Giants" and the advertisers on their platforms.

Oh, wait.....what am I talking about? That's way too much effort for people like you. You wanna Magic Silver Bullet for everything.

 

Ahh....the ole' Hate Speech is violent argument.

Tell ya what, go to a boxing ring, get someone to call you all kinds of slurs. If you end up in the ICU I'll pay for all your medical bills.

And while you may have a right to live in the pursuit of happiness...you have no right to happiness.

 

Hate speech often leads to violence .. but this is not the only argument being made here .. nor is your boxing ring analogy relevent sans on a simplistic prima facie level. .. we have other laws against speech meant to incite violence - or chaos .. yelling fire in crowded theater and so on.

The point here however is to understand the distinction - between "essential liberty" and what is not -- which you have yet to show good comprehension ... .. but it is true that this one is in a grey area .. problem is that you have no clue where the bar is .. and so have staked out an extremist position on one side of the spectrum .. a black vs white paradigm .. in a land of grey .. and on this basis you argument will fail .. if you ever manage to make one.

 

I'd like to see your evidence that hate speech often leads to violence. Every argument that I have heard about hate speech being considered violent is that it is an assault on a person emotionally and that is akin to physical violence. You're the first to bring up "hate speech often leads to violence".

As for essential liberty, and to put simply: essential liberty is about being able to do whatever you want provided that it does not violate anyone else's liberty. For example I have an essential liberty to open up a business in order to provide for myself. But I do not have an essential liberty to open up a business and run it in a way that harms another human being. I have an essential liberty to tell someone to F off, but I do not have an essential liberty to strike that person physically. I have an essential liberty to pursue happiness, I do not have an essential liberty to not be offended however.

 

This above is denial of the obvious -- Try walking around in downtown Detroit using the N-Word and let me know how that works out.

Yes .. Essential liberty does not include theft, murder, rape and so on .. Jefferson put it The legit authority of Gov't extends only to acts injurious to others.

 

I never said that it can't lead to violence. You did say that it "often leads to violence". I say that it doesn't most of the time.

But does that really matter? There is no excuse for physically attacking a person over words....continue this sentence below....

...because as you point out and affirm what I said...Essential liberty does not include, murder, theft, rape....and to add to that list...physical attacks.

 

Clearly the courts disagree with you -- and so do I - as your claim that walking through a ghe uttering racial slurs would not often lead to violence is preposterous nonsense.

correct - added to the list - and you have now proved to yourself that uttering racial slurs is not "essential liberty" = not free speech.

Told you as soon as you answered the question your argument was toast.

 

There is such a thing as "fighting words" agreed. And the courts have on occasion excused the violence. But that happens rarely. And I've never heard of it being applied due to a fight in a ghetto area.

And it appears that you have moved the goal posts. We were talking about free speech vs hate speech in the whole of society and how much violence it perpetrated. I used an example, then you used your own. Or at least I thought that it was just an example. But it was you moving the goal posts. My comment was based on society as a whole not resorting to violence just because of a slur. But you applied it to just the ghettos. Thereby changing the context.

In other words you are manipulating the words said to suit your agenda. But as you can see that will not work.

Except the list it was added to was about things that are not a part of essential liberty. And the word added was "physical attacks". Hate speech is not a physical attack. And while speech can lead to violence it is not in and of itself violent. This is proved by the simple fact that hate speech causes no physical harm. Only physical objects can physically harm.

In any case...know what else is on that list of things that are not a part of essential liberty? The right to not be offended. Because there is no such right.

One more thing...there are words that are not considered hate speech, yet still cause violence. For example "I slept with you wife". How does that play into your argument?

 

The first amendment doesn’t apply to private entities. How is it people don’t know this?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

What a joke .. the majority of society does - and does not do alot of things .. This has no relevance to those that do .. and you tried to claim it was not common for violence to erupt on the basis of a racial slur .. which is preposterous nonsense.

Common relative to what in the general population .. I gave just one example -- there are many others where such a slur would result in violence. What is not common .. is folks using such slurs in public ... because of the risk of violence.

You are in rancid denial of the obvious .. you the one trying to move goalposts .. backtrack from your claims .. explain away the fact that your argument is lost.

Racial slur is not free speech - not an essential liberty -- nor should it be.

 

At least you admit you’re a racist. So I guess you have that going for you.