Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

[Terthna]

Yes, that is exactly what I want.

That's what it means to be dedicated to freedom of speech as a principle; you have to defend ALL speech, as otherwise it's meaningless.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

Yeah I’m always of the opinion that being able to say anything no matter how out there is a net positive for everyone. The minute you start saying everything but someone else is going to have more buts and eventually no one is saying anything and that’s when things really go bad

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

I mean, we let @Abhorsen speak here despite his opinions differing from ours in many ways.

 

[Cherico]

I mean, we let @Abhorsen speak here despite his opinions differing from ours in many ways.

Abhorsen will be right with us on the same wall if the firing squad comes and he knows it.

That said If thats the way I go so be it at least I will have pleasant company.

 

[Abhorsen]

Abhorsen will be right with us on the same wall if the firing squad comes and he knows it.

That said If thats the way I go so be it at least I will have pleasant company.

Aww, thank you.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

That's what it means to be dedicated to freedom of speech as a principle; you have to defend ALL speech, as otherwise it's meaningless.

Curiously, no one seems to have argued this in the era of the Hays Code, or of obscenity laws throughout the history of the United States.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Curiously, no one seems to have argued this in the era of the Hays Code, or of obscenity laws throughout the history of the United States.

.....Ok? People are hypocrites and don't consistently uphold the ideas they profess to hold. That's not exactly a shocking revelation.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

Obscenity laws in general need to be removed they all use the same weasel wording so they can be used by anyone in power on anything they don’t like. Man I wish laws had to be super specific about stuff.

 

[Bear Ribs]

If I had my druthers I'd go for something like a "clear meaning" amendment to the constitution. Every five years the government takes the entire law code and has random surveys of people read the laws and answer multiple choice questions on them. If the citizens (a majority percentage) aren't able to tell what the law does it's automatically repealed as being too poorly worded and unclear. If they can't agree on what the law would affect or how it works (such as poorly worded obscenity laws) the law is automatically repealed.

This would have the knock-on effect of allowing the citizenry to repeal extremely unpopular laws by deliberately flubbing the test on them. This is a feature, not a bug.

Granted this is pretty much wishful thinking as such an amendment would be nearly impossible and the powers that be have zero interest in handing over such power to the people.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

If I had my druthers I'd go for something like a "clear meaning" amendment to the constitution. Every five years the government takes the entire law code and has random surveys of people read the laws and answer multiple choice questions on them. If the citizens (a majority percentage) aren't able to tell what the law does it's automatically repealed as being too poorly worded and unclear. If they can't agree on what the law would affect or how it works (such as poorly worded obscenity laws) the law is automatically repealed.

This would have the knock-on effect of allowing the citizenry to repeal extremely unpopular laws by deliberately flubbing the test on them. This is a feature, not a bug.

Granted this is pretty much wishful thinking as such an amendment would be nearly impossible and the powers that be have zero interest in handing over such power to the people.

It is a nice idea, but the demorats would immedially move to ensure THEIR people are the ones taking the survey. They love this kind of infiltration, after all.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

I mean I’ve read laws before and some use such imprecise language it could mean anything like “harmful” who decides what is harmful and by what metric. Arguing some of these wording in a lot of laws would quickly devolve into something out of a vs board
Or the Greek forums with the rhetoric and whoever can yell the loudest winning

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

.....Ok? People are hypocrites and don't consistently uphold the ideas they profess to hold. That's not exactly a shocking revelation.

Hypocriy is fine everyone is only human after all. Saying the hypocritcy is right and justifying it is the problem.

 

[lordmcdeath]

I can see two solutions to this, 1 of which should have been done in 2016. (Token Center-Left Democrat here)

1) Make political affiliation a protected class like sex, religion, or race. Then the same protections would necessarily apply. So either they weaken those protections or they are forced to prove they aren't banning people for that. It would require a much more transparent and through appeals process just for their own legal protection.

2.) Any media company with more than 30% in their particular space in a given country has to be treated as a public square. If you are public with your identity, you cannot be banned from them for anything that isn't actual criminal, and only after it is convicted. You will also need extensive and transparent processes for removing things like copy righted material, along with things like child porn or the bomb making instructions. Along with a public appeals process.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

I mean I think preventing bomb making instructions is even going to far for one your going to have to cut out chemistry class for that to do anything knowledge shouldn’t be censored period besides again that’s a hop and skip away from banning stuff like how to make fireworks or guns

 

[Doomsought]

I mean I think preventing bomb making instructions is even going to far for one your going to have to cut out chemistry class for that to do anything knowledge shouldn’t be censored period besides again that’s a hop and skip away from banning stuff like how to make fireworks or guns

there are all sorts of reasons why it is important to know how to make bombs, such a mining, demolition, and the manufacture of military armaments.

 

[Terthna]

It is a nice idea, but the demorats would immedially move to ensure THEIR people are the ones taking the survey. They love this kind of infiltration, after all.

Unfortunately, any attempt to fix our broken system is going to run into the problem that a lot of people like that it's broken.

 

[lordmcdeath]

And honestly, I am nervous with people putting up videos with instructions about how to put together IEDs using house hold chemicals. But this seems a slightly separate debate.

 

[LordsFire]

And honestly, I am nervous with people putting up videos with instructions about how to put together IEDs using house hold chemicals. But this seems a slightly separate debate.

High school Chemistry teaches you how to make bombs. Basic texts available on the internet teaches you how to make bombs.

It's literally information that is impossibly easy to get out, and you would need a vast and intrusive bureaucracy to even try, which would be doomed to fail regardless.

Trying to do so both would not work, would cost billions, and would have an immense host of negative side-effects.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

See this is the danger of even censorship that makes “sense” or emotionally sounds good.

I’ve also found the concept of we stand on the shoulders of giants a warning as much as it is praise laws get built on they don’t get removed.

I mean with google removing websites from its search results because of “harmful” information I’m angry just thinking about some person who I have no way of confronting or voting out dictating to me what I can or can’t see is super frustrating. I mean obviously I’ll use another search engine but this crap spreads it need to be stopped

 

[Largo]

It isn't illegal, but it should be. The fact of the matter is that Twitter is a platform where the majority of people communicate; if you aren't on on Twitter, your ability to reach people is sorely hampered when compared to those who are. By selectively banning people from their platform, Twitter is controlling the public discourse to a significant degree. In short, due to their prominence, they have defacto power over freedom of speech.

How's that any different from a publisher or a newspaper? There was that publisher who was going to publish a book by Josh Hawley but decided not to do so because of 1/6. That affected the public discourse. Is that illegal? Is it illegal when I send a column to the New York Times demanding that it be plastered in the editorial pages and the Times laughs in my face? I'd observe that we have had newspapers and publishers in the past who have affected the American political discourse as much if not more so than Twitter. Twitter didn't literally drag this country into a war unlike Hearst.

And of course, why does size matter? So it's not okay for Twitter to prevent me from reaching millions, but okay for Spacebattles to prevent me from reaching hundreds if not thousands?