... about the difference between the 'right to free speech' and the 'right to amplification of speech'.
We need to have a serious conversation ...
- Thread starter Hawkize!!
- Start date
Headline should be, “Suppression of dissenting opinions reduces opposing communication”
So banning Trump (and others) from discussing allegations of a contested election reduced online talk/allegations of a contested election. No Shit!?
Edited to add: I’m not contending that the claims weren’t BS; I’ve not seen evidence to back them up. I’m just not a fan of suppressing speech.
So banning Trump (and others) from discussing allegations of a contested election reduced online talk/allegations of a contested election. No Shit!?
Edited to add: I’m not contending that the claims weren’t BS; I’ve not seen evidence to back them up. I’m just not a fan of suppressing speech.
It's not clear to me that you understand what 'suppressing speech' means.
Republican Wears ‘Censored’ Face Mask While Speaking Into Literal Microphone
QAnon supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene wore a “censorship” face mask to deliver a speech in front of Congress.
www.thecut.com
There is also a difference between "free speech" & "hate speech"
Free speech happens when you speak on an issue and yet you
know others do not agree with you. You have the right to talk
about your views in a civil and honest manner without rancor.
Hate speech happens when a person spews forth hateful
language against someone. It might be legal to speak with
hate filled words but it is never productive in promoting peace.
Free speech happens when you speak on an issue and yet you
know others do not agree with you. You have the right to talk
about your views in a civil and honest manner without rancor.
Hate speech happens when a person spews forth hateful
language against someone. It might be legal to speak with
hate filled words but it is never productive in promoting peace.
It’s not suppression to have a terms of condition for usage of your product and refuse service to people who violate the terms; any more than you’re starving someone if you don’t allow them in your grocery store without a shirt on.
Using a social media platform to deliberately spread false information to incite violence.
This is the 21st Century version of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
This is the 21st Century version of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
It’s absolutely suppression of speech. Now, whether or not a PRIVATE company has the RIGHT to suppress the speech is another issue. I don’t like it but I do contend that they do.
Twitter didn’t cut him off for “discussing allegations.”
They cut him off for making shit up out of thin air in an attempt to steal an election and disenfranchise millions. An attempt that resulted in the the recipients of his Tweets invading the Capitol to stop the vote count and harm elected officials.
It’s not suppressing speech to enforce a platform’s terms of service.
They cut him off for making shit up out of thin air in an attempt to steal an election and disenfranchise millions. An attempt that resulted in the the recipients of his Tweets invading the Capitol to stop the vote count and harm elected officials.
It’s not suppressing speech to enforce a platform’s terms of service.
How about terms of service? I applaud Twitter and the rest for cracking down on the outright lies by Trump and the alt right. We're not talking about differing opinions on whether or not California or Florida is a better vacation spot, we're talking about lies to to promote an agenda of destabilizing and ultimately overthrowing the US Government. Thank God they finally did something to stop this after five years of it.
So, a restaurant refusing service is “starving” someone.
Twitter isn’t preventing Trump from speaking; they just aren’t proving the platform. Do you think they can refuse, say, the KKK or ISIS without criticism?
I would say it surprises me that so many republicans still don’t understand free speech, but it really doesn’t surprise me
Pretty simple on the "right to free speech" - government cannot abridge it, amplified or not. Twitter is not the government
If you feel so strongly about it maybe you should start up a Twitter of your very own and give your Trumpy free reign on it. Free enterprise, baby.
It really doesn't surprise me that some AMERICANS - regardless of their party - still don't understand the First Amendment.
Twitter has terms of service that were violated. What is it about that you don't understand?
Yep ... and Hobby Lobby, for not providing abortion coverage, needs to provide paternal support to their employees' babies.
