Surrendering our Freedom of Speech.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You are free to disagree, for sure, but I've read the constitution and many, many court rulings concerning the first amendment--that's from where I derive my opinion on the matter.

Now, if you're capable of showing me where private businesses don't have a right to censor or restrict things said or how their products/services are used, then I'm all ears.

Yes, I know that you're incorrect--there is no right to equal platforms or volumes or audiences--but I'm just interested to see what you produce to back your claim, if anything. See, there's a difference between arguing the philosophy of free speech versus the reality of it's constitutional protections, but again, let's see what you've got to prove me wrong, because I don't disagree with your assertion to the philosophy of it, but that's not what I was talking about.

America has constitutional protection, where many other member countries do not.

So, outta over a quarter million members world-continent-country-goverments-wide of ATS that the internet reaches...many do not have freedom of speech, many are vastly different in what's acceptable to say, see and write about.

So, I'm assuming you're just addressing those in the US or UK etc....where we have some quaranteed freedom of speech.

Of course we all should...but it isn't that way. If I owned a comp. that was seen and used worldwide...I would have to block, censor, delete, redact, omit whatever wasn't in accordance to local laws, religions and politics.

Late rocker Gregg Allman sang it best: "You can't lose what you never had"

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nah, I think that I'll stick with my original comment that you quoted and responded to, because nothing I said in it is wrong or vague, even if you objected to it for a reason that I still don't care to ponder.

But, hey, if you couldn't infer from my comment that I was talking about our constitutional protection under the first amendment when I said (and you quoted...which means you read):

Except that's not what freedom of speech means. You're wrong. But go ahead and stick with it.

Regardless, nitpicking my communication style isn't something I'm going to spend anymore time on.

Best regards.

ETA: Let me point to Elton's comment at the beginning of the thread, which mirrors my point almost perfectly...and he didn't even cite the phrase "first amendment," but we all knew what he was saying:

Well let me quote you:

Now, if you're capable of showing me where private businesses don't have a right to censor or restrict things said or how their products/services are used, then I'm all ears.

Yes, I know that you're incorrect--there is no right to equal platforms or volumes or audiences--but I'm just interested to see what you produce to back your claim, if anything. See, there's a difference between arguing the philosophy of free speech versus the reality of it's constitutional protections, but again, let's see what you've got to prove me wrong, because I don't disagree with your assertion to the philosophy of it, but that's not what I was talking about.

You know I'm incorrect, even though I didn't argue the opposite.

So twice wrong, and then peel and run when the argument gets too difficult.

Best Regards

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Not another Alex Jones thread!

For me it’s just an interesting question that the recent banning of Alex Jones raises, as much as I disagree with everything the man has to say, it does raise the question about the ability of social media to supress freedom of speech.

It doesn't. Here's a thought:

you people were the ones to supress free speech in 9/11 threads while it was a no-go to debate conspiracy-theories. You've mocked truthers as if there was no sinister cabal with a vested interest in war, chaos and death.
It was you stiffs, with the wood firmly attached to your rear hole, who didn't think twice about bullying the open minded folks to the point of leaving this community. You've taunted them into adhom explosions like the good trolls you are, all for the true truth you found in "patriotism" and sheer ignorance. Maybe they came back, but some of them surely didn't.

Accessibility to the debate was none of your concerns at that moment, you were happy to exclude them like the good fascist you already have been. Maybe you're not, I'm merely overstating things to make a point nobody dares to mention: it was a process, and it didn't start with banning AJ.

No. I don't give a flying sh!t about this faux outrage regarding the easy accessibility of infowar BS on fckbook or Twatter. None of you 'free folks' mentioned Abby Martin or TeleSur, or maybe the Corbett Report, for their issues with Big Corp giants. It's all about the big lie of "conservatives" being censored by leftie communist corporations.

C'mon! Really?

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

No one peeled and ran, "Ninja," I just know a petty discussion when I'm roped into one. You're not even discussing the topic anymore, just bitching about how you're unable to comprehend my points and then seemingly mischaracterize how you responded to me.

Move on--this argument has no relevancy to either of our real lives, and I have better things to do. If you want to equate that to 'peeling and running,' then that's yet another instance of you inability to comprehend what is actually happening.

Suffice it to say this: "Free speech" is a philosophical argument that says that, in nature and in an ungoverned existence, a human being is free to say whatever they want to without regard to anything and without external limitations or influences, but the reality of "freedom of speech" is that it's a right protected from limitations by a centralized government by the U.S. Constitution (and subsequent SCOTUS rulings).

Yes, there's a difference, and I was discussing the latter while you responded discussing the former. You missed my point because you brought along with you a failure of understanding of what I wrote--you DID argue the philosophical version in your initial response to me.

Well, let me quote you:

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I do not agree with you here. Freedom of speech is basically the principle that one should be able to impart and receive information without fear of restriction or censorship by force or coercion.

So, yes, you were arguing the philosophical--or as you put it, 'principled'--approach to free speech, whereas I was discussing it from the point of how it is affected by government. You still can't see that, but that's okay, because like I said, your opinion on the matter is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of my life.

You can keep saying that I'm wrong (or "twice wrong"), but reality dictates otherwise. But, really, who cares anymore. If you think being right is the most important thing in this thread, run with that, but I'm passing the baton to someone else you can pester with pettiness.

Bye.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I said I disagreed, gave my opinion, and you responded with snark. I completely understood what you wrote, and because of it, I understand you have no clue what you're talking about.

Sorry, but reality dictates that this is a thread about free speech, the topic we're discussing, the principle the first amendment protects, and what you dismiss as the "philosophical version".

Now you're 4 times wrong. Your snark and pettiness is only exceeded by your ignorance on the matter.

Bye...again.

THE JEWS ARE ALREADY BANNING ACCOUNTS ON 4CHAN.

CULT OF KEK IS REAL???

WTF IS GOING ON?????