Is free speech under attack?

[Poker_Babe]

So I think some of you who know me might have seen this thread coming after posting the PC poll.
I personally am of the opinion that free speech is, always has, and always will be under attack. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I'm the kind of person that although I might disagree with what you say, I'll still fight to the death your right to say it.

I know I haven't posted here for a while, I've been on a bit of a hiatus do to being busy in my studies. One thing I had been learning about recently is antitrust law. It seems to me that Facebook, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, etc... Are in violation of antitrust law with what they did to Alex Jones.
What about what happened to YouTuber Mark Meechan aka count dankula?

Would anyone like to contribute to the list of examples of how free speech is under attack? Or do you think that free speech is not under attack? Or do you not believe that free speech is a right that should be protected?
Here in the States, there are limits on free speech that not everyone may realize. For example, you can't say anything to insight violence, threaten people with violence, yell fire in a crowded theater (unless of course there is a fire), defamation in the form of libel and slader is a big no no, gag orders, trade secrets, obscenity, and a few other examples I can't quite think of off the top of my head right now.
Do you think there should be limits on speech at all? If not then why?

 

[dilligaf0]

Free speech has to be confined to civility. When there's no control, it generally escalates to violence. If recent events have taught us anything, it's that people do not exercise self-control. Maybe if they did then other's wouldn't need to limit them.
Like everything in a society, My freedom ends where your rights begin and vice-versa.
When a racist incites violence against others, he must be held accountable if someone carries out that violence.
Free speech doesn't mean mean "anything goes". The same is true for physical actions. As far as Jones, the companies you mentioned have the right to refuse to carry his "opinions" since they are, after all, private companies.
As far as the government "limiting" free speech, isn't that what the FCC does by banning nudity and hardcore sex on broadcast television? What about beatings or outright murder? Do you see how far this could go? Civilized society must have some limits or it degrades into anarchy.

 

[Fatquack]

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Alex Jones incited violence and every private company that banned him had a right to do so. Free speech is not under attack, hate speech is.

You do realize that he doxxed parents of Sandy Hook victims, right? He put out their addresses to his radicalized followers and they stalked and threatened those poor people to the point they had to move multiple times. Because their kids were murdered and Alex fucking Jones convinced people it was all a conspiracy.

Absolutely none of that is, or should be, protected by free speech. Free speech only pertains to what the government can do, not the rest of us and certainly not companies like twitter or YouTube.

Fuck Alex Jones, he deserves no platform for his snake oil madness.

 

[curvyredhead]

I am more than willing to hear out and learn some reasons why free speech may be under attack...but Alex Jones is a horrible example.

 

[JickyJuly]

I think free speech must be under attack because so few people seem to understand what their right to it actually means. Where was everyone in 6th grade? You have the right to speak out against your government without being hurt for it. That is your right to free speech. That means... when Kaep kneels and the NFL boots him, his free speech is not being attacked. It also means that when he kneels and the President of the United States of America says shit about it, his freedom of speech IS being attacked.

Unless your government is trying to harm you because you've spoken out against it, your freedom of speech is intact. Facebook, the NFL, MFC, a radio station, AmberCutieForums are all private entities that have a right to cut you off from their platform if they dislike what you're saying or if what you're saying is going to cost them money. Americans are not entitled to spread their stupidity around freely on someone else's dime.

So... add to your list any time the President of the United States has verbally attacked an individual citizen or business. Hope you have a good pen.

 

[Emberblaze]

Free speech just means you can't be persecuted by the government for your opinions.

But owners of social media platforms have every right to decide what can be said on their platform. Just as Amber has every right to decide what can and can not be said on ACF, Apple, YouTube, Facebook etc reserve the same rights.

That's not an attack on free speech. That's the right of the companies.

Feel free to provide other examples as I'm sure legitimate examples exist but Alex Jones is not one of them.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Free speech has to be confined to civility. When there's no control, it generally escalates to violence. If recent events have taught us anything, it's that people do not exercise self-control. Maybe if they did then other's wouldn't need to limit them.
Like everything in a society, My freedom ends where your rights begin and vice-versa.
When a racist incites violence against others, he must be held accountable if someone carries out that violence.
Free speech doesn't mean mean "anything goes". The same is true for physical actions. As far as Jones, the companies you mentioned have the right to refuse to carry his "opinions" since they are, after all, private companies.
As far as the government "limiting" free speech, isn't that what the FCC does by banning nudity and hardcore sex on broadcast television? What about beatings or outright murder? Do you see how far this could go? Civilized society must have some limits or it degrades into anarchy.

How do you feel about things such as protestors/rioters throwing moltave cocktails, breaking storefront windows, people taking items from their local stores? Throwing bricks, bags full of feces and urine at police during political protests such as at the G8 or RNC convenvtions? Do people have a right to shut down an interstate in protest?

I agree that free speach means that you can be critical of your government, without fear of arrest or retaliation. Freedom of speech is also where we have a right to speak our mind so long as it doesn't incite a riot, is lible or slander, or other similar things in a public place. But, on a private setting, such as internet forum, business, etc., it means that the owner has the right to remove said person if they so choose.

People who are protesting have a right to do so peacefully and without impacting other's lives. However, if your protesting or rioting causes harm to another or damage to property, they should be arrested and held liable. A person's insurance shouldn't have to pay for damages caused by rioting and looting. Nor should a person be left to die because protestors refuse to let first responders in to save a person with a life threatening medical condition. If a person is stupid enough to step out onto the interstate/highway/freeway and protest there, I have no empathy if their dumb ass gets run over by a car or semi. Just like if someone happens to be in an area where a riot breaks out, and people start causing thousands of dollars of damage to a person's property (car, home, business), I really have no problem if said owner protects themselves, others and property by use of deadly force (castle doctrine). Years ago, it was legal to kill a person for stealing or killing their horse or livestock.

We can disagree with one another. But, respectfully do so.

Like everything in a society, My freedom ends where your rights begin and vice-versa.

Negative. One does not become a slave, or secondary, to another because of their rights. When speaking of "rights" in the context of the Constitution and US law, it means equal use/application for those who are legally able to exercise a particular right. They also have the right to not exercise said right, if they so decide. Now, if you mean Constitutionally granted rights will generall trump priviliges, that I will agree with. There are also times where rights can be removed due to criminal issues. Just like there are times where rights will conflict, or a right may legally be denied due to undue impact on another. There's an old saying of "Your rights stop when they come in contact with the end of my reach."

 

[Poker_Babe]

I would really appreciate it if someone could give me a link to where AJ called for violence against or doxed the Sandy Hook parents. I keep seeing people saying this on the web, but have yet to find an actual example of this. I'm not saying this to be a smart ass, or stick up for AJ, I truly would appreciate it if someone could source this for me please.
As far as all the businesses I named deplatforming AJ, yes, I am aware that they are private companies, and can choose to not do business with anyone they want, but...
When it pertains to antitrust law, what these companies are not allowed to do is to collude with one another to deny services to him. This is called a group boycott, and it's a violation of antitrust law. There's a few more legal arguments that Jones has in his favor, but it's early and I haven't had my coffee just yet. I'll post a few more examples if anyone is interested, but I doubt anyone will be, cause most people find that stuff boring.

 

[Poker_Babe]

I'm sorry I should have clarified I wasn't just speaking about Free Speech being under attack when it comes to the US Constitution and American laws. I was actually speaking in the broader sense of societal norms in First World countries as well as legalities. Hence, why I brought up Mark Meechan.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Here’s a nice little overview courtesy of the New York Times.

But there’s no shortage of information out there about his bullshit.

 

[dilligaf0]

How do you feel about things such as protestors/rioters throwing moltave cocktails, breaking storefront windows, people taking items from their local stores? Throwing bricks, bags full of feces and urine at police during political protests such as at the G8 or RNC convenvtions? Do people have a right to shut down an interstate in protest?

You are no longer talking about free speech at that point, that is physical violence. Physical violence is illegal. Another example of that is you walking up to someone and saying "hi" and their response is to hit you with a baseball bat. Not allowed.

I agree that free speach means that you can be critical of your government, without fear of arrest or retaliation. Freedom of speech is also where we have a right to speak our mind so long as it doesn't incite a riot, is lible or slander, or other similar things in a public place. But, on a private setting, such as internet forum, business, etc., it means that the owner has the right to remove said person if they so choose.

People who are protesting have a right to do so peacefully and without impacting other's lives. However, if your protesting or rioting causes harm to another or damage to property, they should be arrested and held liable. A person's insurance shouldn't have to pay for damages caused by rioting and looting. Nor should a person be left to die because protestors refuse to let first responders in to save a person with a life threatening medical condition. If a person is stupid enough to step out onto the interstate/highway/freeway and protest there, I have no empathy if their dumb ass gets run over by a car or semi. Just like if someone happens to be in an area where a riot breaks out, and people start causing thousands of dollars of damage to a person's property (car, home, business), I really have no problem if said owner protects themselves, others and property by use of deadly force (castle doctrine). Years ago, it was legal to kill a person for stealing or killing their horse or livestock.

We can disagree with one another. But, respectfully do so.

I agree. I do think a response to violence should be somewhat equal to the threat. If someone is stealing an item but is unarmed, a response of shooting him is extreme. Tackling them and calling the cops is not.

How do you feel about things such as protestors/rioters throwing moltave cocktails, breaking storefront windows, people taking items from their local stores? Throwing bricks, bags full of feces and urine at police during political protests such as at the G8 or RNC convenvtions? Do people have a right to shut down an interstate in protest?

I agree that free speach means that you can be critical of your government, without fear of arrest or retaliation. Freedom of speech is also where we have a right to speak our mind so long as it doesn't incite a riot, is lible or slander, or other similar things in a public place. But, on a private setting, such as internet forum, business, etc., it means that the owner has the right to remove said person if they so choose.

People who are protesting have a right to do so peacefully and without impacting other's lives. However, if your protesting or rioting causes harm to another or damage to property, they should be arrested and held liable. A person's insurance shouldn't have to pay for damages caused by rioting and looting. Nor should a person be left to die because protestors refuse to let first responders in to save a person with a life threatening medical condition. If a person is stupid enough to step out onto the interstate/highway/freeway and protest there, I have no empathy if their dumb ass gets run over by a car or semi. Just like if someone happens to be in an area where a riot breaks out, and people start causing thousands of dollars of damage to a person's property (car, home, business), I really have no problem if said owner protects themselves, others and property by use of deadly force (castle doctrine). Years ago, it was legal to kill a person for stealing or killing their horse or livestock.

We can disagree with one another. But, respectfully do so.



Negative. One does not become a slave, or secondary, to another because of their rights. When speaking of "rights" in the context of the Constitution and US law, it means equal use/application for those who are legally able to exercise a particular right. They also have the right to not exercise said right, if they so decide. Now, if you mean Constitutionally granted rights will generall trump priviliges, that I will agree with. There are also times where rights can be removed due to criminal issues. Just like there are times where rights will conflict, or a right may legally be denied due to undue impact on another. There's an old saying of "Your rights stop when they come in contact with the end of my reach."

What I meant (and expressed somewhat vaguely) is I should not be able to walk up to someone I've never met, and start yelling, threatening and berating them for no reason and following them so they can't remove themselves from said situation. Then, I am violating their rights.

 

[dilligaf0]

I would really appreciate it if someone could give me a link to where AJ called for violence against or doxed the Sandy Hook parents. I keep seeing people saying this on the web, but have yet to find an actual example of this. I'm not saying this to be a smart ass, or stick up for AJ, I truly would appreciate it if someone could source this for me please.
As far as all the businesses I named deplatforming AJ, yes, I am aware that they are private companies, and can choose to not do business with anyone they want, but...
When it pertains to antitrust law, what these companies are not allowed to do is to collude with one another to deny services to him. This is called a group boycott, and it's a violation of antitrust law. There's a few more legal arguments that Jones has in his favor, but it's early and I haven't had my coffee just yet. I'll post a few more examples if anyone is interested, but I doubt anyone will be, cause most people find that stuff boring.

Please give us links to prove those companies conspired with each other to keep him off the air.
As far as I can find out, Meechen was convicted of a hate crime. That crime would certainly be enough justification to be removed from a platform.
In the same vein as a convicted child molester should be banned from using websites targeted at children.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Now I don’t know much about anti trust laws, but I can imagine he’d be hard pressed to form a case for that because he did violate the TOS on all those platforms. If he wasn’t spreading hate speech and inciting violence and was removed, maybe he’d have a case. But....

 

[Poker_Babe]

Here’s a nice little overview courtesy of the New York Times.

But there’s no shortage of information out there about his bullshit.
View attachment 78836View attachment 78837

I apologise, I meant an actual link to a broadcast of his, where AJ can be heard insighting vilolence and/or doxing the Sandy Hook parents.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Now I don’t know much about anti trust laws, but I can imagine he’d be hard pressed to form a case for that because he did violate the TOS on all those platforms. If he wasn’t spreading hate speech and inciting violence and was removed, maybe he’d have a case. But....

That's actually a good point. As far as when it comes To TOS

 

[dilligaf0]

I apologise, I meant an actual link to a broadcast of his, where AJ can be heard insighting vilolence and/or doxing the Sandy Hook parents.

Very smart asking for links to videos that have been scrubbed from the sites after he was removed from them. Had you paid attention sooner, you could have seen them as they happened. All that can be provided now are what has been provided.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

I apologise, I meant an actual link to a broadcast of his, where AJ can be heard insighting vilolence and/or doxing the Sandy Hook parents.

I have no desire to watch that piece of shit spew anything. But I did read this in the NYT article. If the video is still up anywhere (which I doubt) you might be able to find it by googling the title.


Edit: By the way, he and his lawyer have never denied that he said all this shit. The parents that he further victimized, have testified in court that he said all this shit. If you can’t find a video, you can probably find court transcripts.

 

[JickyJuly]

When it pertains to antitrust law, what these companies are not allowed to do is to collude with one another to deny services to him. This is called a group boycott, and it's a violation of antitrust law.

What makes you feel separate companies colluded in order to boycott him? And do you feel it was done explicitly to harm him? He lives his life and his opinions very publicly. The cost of that is that people can see you coming. If someone here sees me running my mouth and preemptively bans me from following them on Twitter, have they colluded with the ACF to do so? I don't think so. Whatever I go on about isn't ACF's fault, and no one owes me Twitter. Removing all of someone's platforms at once or before they get to the next one does not necessarily mean there has been any communication between platforms, and it definitely doesn't mean those platforms mean to hurt him personally. I'm not sure there's a way to work AJ's situation into anything remotely like collusion legally even if you squint really hard at it.

How do you feel about things such as protestors/rioters throwing moltave cocktails, breaking storefront windows, people taking items from their local stores? Throwing bricks, bags full of feces and urine at police during political protests such as at the G8 or RNC convenvtions? Do people have a right to shut down an interstate in protest?

I agree that free speach means that you can be critical of your government, without fear of arrest or retaliation. Freedom of speech is also where we have a right to speak our mind so long as it doesn't incite a riot, is lible or slander, or other similar things in a public place. But, on a private setting, such as internet forum, business, etc., it means that the owner has the right to remove said person if they so choose.

People who are protesting have a right to do so peacefully and without impacting other's lives. However, if your protesting or rioting causes harm to another or damage to property, they should be arrested and held liable. A person's insurance shouldn't have to pay for damages caused by rioting and looting. Nor should a person be left to die because protestors refuse to let first responders in to save a person with a life threatening medical condition. If a person is stupid enough to step out onto the interstate/highway/freeway and protest there, I have no empathy if their dumb ass gets run over by a car or semi. Just like if someone happens to be in an area where a riot breaks out, and people start causing thousands of dollars of damage to a person's property (car, home, business), I really have no problem if said owner protects themselves, others and property by use of deadly force (castle doctrine). Years ago, it was legal to kill a person for stealing or killing their horse or livestock.

We can disagree with one another. But, respectfully do so.

Protest should certainly be without violence, but it's meant to disrupt and respect is too subjective to be a requirement. Since protesters need to follow laws or face punishment, there's not a ton of value in discussing what is or is not allowed in protest. They're not allowed to be anywhere a regular pedestrian wouldn't be. They're not allowed to throw bricks or injure folks or property. If any of that happens, there are already laws to protect victims. Talking about the what-ifs instead of the why seems distracting. Rosa Parks broke a law when she stayed sat on the bus. Definitely slowed the bus down. Got arrested. Disrespectful was probably the nicer of the names people in opposition used for her. But, she was peaceful and valid. As long as the peaceful part stays intact, the rest of it is just painting the situation. Had the civil rights movement not been counted as a win, Rosa Parks would probably just be mentioned as a lady who made people late one day with her nonsense too.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Please give us links to prove those companies conspired with each other to keep him off the air.
As far as I can find out, Meechen was convicted of a hate crime. That crime would certainly be enough justification to be removed from a platform.
In the same vein as a convicted child molester should be banned from using websites targeted at children.

As far as I know Mark meechan wasn't removed from any platform, what I was referring to was him getting arrested and being convicted of him making a video of him teaching his dog how to do Zig hyle in order to piss off his girlfriend. In the video he clearly states that he's not a racist and that Nazis are the most horrible thing he could think of. What I find truly disturbing is that he was arrested for making a YouTube video in bad taste that went viral, when there are actual crimes being committed that the police should be focusing on it instead.
As for proof that these companies colluded in deplatforming Alex Jones...
Res ipsa loquitur or the evidence speaks for itself. I believe Jack Dorsey even admitted that there was collusion on the part of these companies. I'll try to find the link to where I heard that in a little bit.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

In the video he clearly states that he's not a racist and that Nazis are the most horrible thing he could think of.

Well if he said it, it must be true!!

Jesus

If someone thinks that the nazi salute is some shit to joke about, then clearly they don’t think nazis are this “most horrible thing.” They’re just another thing to joke about.

You know it’s completely illegal in Germany to show nazi icons or do the salute? Is that a free speech issue? Or totally reasonable because those people committed Genocide and the whole world went to war to stop them?

So many people in the world who are marginalized, and these are the ones you sympathize with?

He made his dog respond to cues such as, “gas the Jews” and uploaded a video of it. Then gets found guilty of a hate crime under their communications act.
“This court has taken freedom of expression into account. But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility.” Source

 

[dilligaf0]

As far as I know Mark meechan wasn't removed from any platform, what I was referring to was him getting arrested and being convicted of him making a video of him teaching his dog how to do Zig hyle in order to piss off his girlfriend. In the video he clearly states that he's not a racist and that Nazis are the most horrible thing he could think of. What I find truly disturbing is that he was arrested for making a YouTube video in bad taste that went viral, when there are actual crimes being committed that the police should be focusing on it instead.
As for proof that these companies colluded in deplatforming Alex Jones...
Res ipsa loquitur or the evidence speaks for itself. I believe Jack Dorsey even admitted that there was collusion on the part of these companies. I'll try to find the link to where I heard that in a little bit.

I had never heard of Meecham before you brought him up, to be honest.
As far as being charged and convicted of a hate crime, that's out of the "free speech" area and into the "crimes" area. And nowhere near "anti-trust laws" as far as I can tell. If he trained his dog to do that to "piss off his girlfriend" why did he make the video? Just have the dog do it for her.
It doesn't add up.
Racist before being caught:

Racist after being caught:

They're always "not promoting violence" after they're caught.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Protest should certainly be without violence, but it's meant to disrupt and respect is too subjective to be a requirement. Since protesters need to follow laws or face punishment, there's not a ton of value in discussing what is or is not allowed in protest. They're not allowed to be anywhere a regular pedestrian wouldn't be. They're not allowed to throw bricks or injure folks or property. If any of that happens, there are already laws to protect victims. Talking about the what-ifs instead of the why seems distracting. Rosa Parks broke a law when she stayed sat on the bus. Definitely slowed the bus down. Got arrested. Disrespectful was probably the nicer of the names people in opposition used for her. But, she was peaceful and valid. As long as the peaceful part stays intact, the rest of it is just painting the situation. Had the civil rights movement not been counted as a win, Rosa Parks would probably just be mentioned as a lady who made people late one day with her nonsense too.

There's a difference between sitting on the bus, blocking a sidewalk and blocking an entire interstate. World of difference.

 

[dilligaf0]

There's a difference between sitting on the bus, blocking a sidewalk and blocking an entire interstate. World of difference.

Not really. People can avoid the road blockage if they really want to (news / radio coverage, traffic apps on the Iphones, etc.).
I see no difference between that and interstate traffic being blocked because a politician's caravan route requires it.
Just my opinion.

 

[JickyJuly]

There's a difference between sitting on the bus, blocking a sidewalk and blocking an entire interstate. World of difference.

To the person doing the thing, sure. It's their risk/benefit to weigh out. A bus certainly blocks traffic better than a human. We already have systems in place to remove a human or a bus from the roadway if they are where they're not meant to be. So, to the people around them, as long as it's not violent, a protest is an inconvenience at worst. If a protest is without merit, why even discuss it as an inconvenience? And if it does have merit, then that seems more worthy of discussion than an inconvenience.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

I had never heard of Meecham before you brought him up, to be honest.
As far as being charged and convicted of a hate crime, that's out of the "free speech" area and into the "crimes" area. And nowhere near "anti-trust laws" as far as I can tell. If he trained his dog to do that to "piss off his girlfriend" why did he make the video? Just have the dog do it for her.
It doesn't add up.
Racist before being caught:

Racist after being caught:

They're always "not promoting violence" after they're caught.

Oh that last video...”Every step of the way (promoting ethnic cleansing) we’ve tried to do the right thing! (Which we believe is ethnic cleansing)” What a sad sack of Nazi shit. Fuck those people and their sympathizers.

 

[dilligaf0]

To the person doing the thing, sure. It's their risk/benefit to weigh out. A bus certainly blocks traffic better than a human. We already have systems in place to remove a human or a bus from the roadway if they are where they're not meant to be. So, to the people around them, as long as it's not violent, a protest is an inconvenience at worst. If a protest is without merit, why even discuss it as an inconvenience? And if it does have merit, then that seems more worthy of discussion than an inconvenience.

And protests are, by nature, a way to bring attention to an issue people feel strongly about.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Protesters will always be vilified by those they are protesting. Frankly, a lot of shit is hitting the fan and we should be out in the streets causing a commotion about it. Look at what South Korea did recently. A massive amount of people turned out to protest their corrupt President, and it worked! Maybe some windows got broken in the process, maybe not, but it got shit done.

People that are fighting for their rights don’t have the luxury of being nice about it. Especially against oppressors that have no issue using violence.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Not really. People can avoid the road blockage if they really want to (news / radio coverage, traffic apps on the Iphones, etc.).
I see no difference between that and interstate traffic being blocked because a politician's caravan route requires it.
Just my opinion.

Yes, major difference. Blocking a seat on a bus, a sidewalk, of FFS even a shopping mall or Gov't building's entrance still has an impact. When you have dumbasses blocking the interstate because they want to protest something, there's are core critical issues that can be created. Potentially thousands of people impacted by this because it can last for hours, even longer if a protester get hit by a car. Ambulances and other emergency personnel now have to go miles out of the way to get to where they need to be.

Comparing a protest that shuts down an interstate one that's momentarily delayed because politican is travelling through it is entirely different and shows ignorance on your part.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

To the person doing the thing, sure. It's their risk/benefit to weigh out. A bus certainly blocks traffic better than a human. We already have systems in place to remove a human or a bus from the roadway if they are where they're not meant to be. So, to the people around them, as long as it's not violent, a protest is an inconvenience at worst. If a protest is without merit, why even discuss it as an inconvenience? And if it does have merit, then that seems more worthy of discussion than an inconvenience.

Because, if a protest is without merit, and causes major issues, those who were doing the protesting should be held liable for damages, delays, etc. It nullifies their cause. Want to protest, stay on the sidewalk, too many people for the sidewalk, fine. Block a side street, there's ways around it. Many times, interstates are impacted for miles due to the backups.

Even if a protest has merit, blocking a major throughway isn't a way to get compassion. Where I live, BLM blocked the interstate many times, and they lost a lot of support and were villified for it. More so when they started throwing bricks at the police attempting to remove them from the interstate.