"Is" the Freedom Of Speech only about saying or doing something?
"Should" people say or do something?
"Should" people have to experience people saying or doing something?
"What" is hate speech?
"Who" decides "what" hate speech is?
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what hate speech is?
"What" is acceptable speech?
"Who" decides "what" is acceptable speech?
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what acceptable speech is?
"Should" there be consequences?
"Who" decides if there "should" be consequences?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if there "should" be consequences?
"What" are the consequences?
"Who" decides "what" are the consequences are?
"Who" decides on "who" get's to decide what the consequences are?
"Can" the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides if the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if the consequences go to far?
"Does" speech equate to violence?
"Who" decides if speech equates to violence?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if speech equates to violence?
"Should" there be violence?
"Who decides if there "should be violence?
"Who decides on "who" decides if there should be violence?
"What" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides "what" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides on "what" violence is appropriate?
If I believe that you have committed hate speech, can I equate it to violence?
Quote
"Is" the Freedom Of Speech only about saying or doing something?
No, it is not. It's a limit on the government's authority.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Should" people say or do something?
It depends on what this something is!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Should" people have to experience people saying or doing something?
Neither yes or no! Yes as in no gov't can prohibit it but if you don't like it one can either come up with a counter argument or leave.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"What" is hate speech?
Here is my definition. Hate Speech is defined as speech that is not based in logic, truth, reason or facts. If you have your speech or what not then present your reasoning behind it.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides "what" hate speech is?
Not who but what. Reason, objective truth, and logic. If there must be a who then those who are committed to search out truth
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what hate speech is?
Those who are committed to search out truth.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"What" is acceptable speech?
Truth that is based in reason, logic and truth.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides "what" is acceptable speech?
Any culture who would be all for truth, reason and logic.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what acceptable speech is?
See above!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Should" there be consequences?
For those who deliberately lie yes.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides if there "should" be consequences?
Those who are committed to search out the truth.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides on "who" decides if there "should" be consequences?
See Above!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"What" are the consequences?
I don't know!
"Who" decides "what" are the consequences are?
Those who are committed to seek out truth above all. It is ignorance that is one of the issues with society.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides on "who" get's to decide what the consequences are?
See above!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Can" the consequences go to far?
Yes!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides if the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if the consequences go to far?
Those who are committed to seeking the truth!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Does" speech equate to violence?
Words are not equal to fists or a gun. In fact, the pen is mightier then the sword.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides if speech equates to violence?
Definition wise, it makes no sense to even equate both.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides on "who" decides if speech equates to violence?
See Above!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Should" there be violence?
Only if to repel violence and bring down those who would promote a lie and legally (Orwell 1984) demand one believes it without question!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who decides if there "should be violence?
Those who are committed to reason and truth. And, those who would be willing to use violence as a last resort. If one doesn't have to use it why do so?
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who decides on "who" decides if there should be violence?
See above!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"What" violence is appropriate?
The only violence that is appropriate is when one is to repel violence and to bring down a government that forces through the law to believe and accept that which is a lie (Orwell 1984). Even then try everything else before resorting to it.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
"Who" decides "what" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides on "what" violence is appropriate?
Those who are committed to reason, logic and truth. Those who are willing to only use violence as a last resort.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM
If I believe that you have committed hate speech, can I equate it to violence?
No! You can't. One's belief should never alone determine what one accepts to be true or one's actions.
Yep, you are a Liberal. Please come back if and when you understand things.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 08:48:21 AM
Yep, you are a Liberal. Please come back if and when you understand things.
Well! What are your answers?
Quote from: alienhand on May 30, 2019, 01:20:43 PM
Well! What are your answers?
Short answer. There is no such thing as "Hate Speech" and slander and lying are illegal and can get you sued.
Quote from: Solar on May 30, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
Short answer. There is no such thing as "Hate Speech" and slander and lying are illegal and can get you sued.
I see! You don't define lying or slander as hate speech. I didn't know that. sorry
Quote from: alienhand on May 30, 2019, 02:26:22 PM
I see! You don't define lying or slander as hate speech. I didn't know that. sorry
Like I said, there is no such thing as "Hate Speech" that is a Marxist creation, there is only speech and it's all free as long as it isn't slanderous or blatant lie, both are subject to civil litigation.
Even then, you must prove damage.
"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen
Why do some people find it necessary to create straw person arguments. Why ask if you already know? What purpose does that serve? Is it to convince yourself of something. Every person knows what hate speech is. They know it because they have used it. They know it because someone used it on them. No mystery here. Does 'love speech' lead to mass murder. Hate and evil are close companions. Google 'hate speech'.
The harder question is how a free society deals with hate speech. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater but you can demean our last president in every hateful way possible and still feel righteous or religious or smart. I' don't know the easy answer, but I know acting like it is a made up issue of your opposing tribe is ignoring reality.
'Germany starts enforcing hate speech law'
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42510868
'Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.' https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/
"Pornography, racial and sexual harassment, and hate speech are acts of intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination, and should be legally treated as such. Only Words is a powerful indictment of a legal system at odds with itself, its First Amendment promoting the very inequalities its Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to end." http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674639348
The 10 neuropsychological symptoms are:
1. Repetition: the aggression is repeated compulsively.
2. Obsessive ideation: the perpetrators are obsessed with ideas that justify their aggression and underlie missions of ethnic cleansing, for instance that all Westerners, or all Muslims, or all Jews, or all Tutsis are evil.
3. Perseveration: circumstances have no impact on the perpetrator's behaviour, who perseveres even if the action is self-destructive.
4. Diminished affective reactivity: the perpetrator has no emotional affect.
5. Hyperarousal: the elation experienced by the perpetrator is a high induced by repetition, and a function of the number of victims.
6. Intact language, memory and problem-solving skills: the syndrome has no impact on higher cognitive abilities.
7. Rapid habituation: the perpetrator becomes desensitised to the violence.
8. Compartmentalisation: the violence can take place in parallel to an ordinary, affectionate family life.
9. Environmental dependency: the context, especially identification with a group and obedience to an authority, determines what actions are possible.
10. Group contagion: belonging to the group enables the action, each member mapping his behaviour on the other. Fried's assumption was that all these ways of behaving had underlying neurophysiological causes that were worth investigating.
https://aeon.co/essays/is-neuroscience-getting-closer-to-explaining-evil-behaviour
Quote from: midcan5 on May 30, 2019, 05:46:42 PM
"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen
Why do some people find it necessary to create straw person arguments. Why ask if you already know? What purpose does that serve? Is it to convince yourself of something. Every person knows what hate speech is. They know it because they have used it. They know it because someone used it on them. No mystery here. Does 'love speech' lead to mass murder. Hate and evil are close companions. Google 'hate speech'.
The harder question is how a free society deals with hate speech. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater but you can demean our last president in every hateful way possible and still feel righteous or religious or smart. I' don't know the easy answer, but I know acting like it is a made up issue of your opposing tribe is ignoring reality.
'Germany starts enforcing hate speech law'
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42510868
'Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.' https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/
"Pornography, racial and sexual harassment, and hate speech are acts of intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination, and should be legally treated as such. Only Words is a powerful indictment of a legal system at odds with itself, its First Amendment promoting the very inequalities its Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to end." http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674639348
The 10 neuropsychological symptoms are:
1. Repetition: the aggression is repeated compulsively.
2. Obsessive ideation: the perpetrators are obsessed with ideas that justify their aggression and underlie missions of ethnic cleansing, for instance that all Westerners, or all Muslims, or all Jews, or all Tutsis are evil.
3. Perseveration: circumstances have no impact on the perpetrator's behaviour, who perseveres even if the action is self-destructive.
4. Diminished affective reactivity: the perpetrator has no emotional affect.
5. Hyperarousal: the elation experienced by the perpetrator is a high induced by repetition, and a function of the number of victims.
6. Intact language, memory and problem-solving skills: the syndrome has no impact on higher cognitive abilities.
7. Rapid habituation: the perpetrator becomes desensitised to the violence.
8. Compartmentalisation: the violence can take place in parallel to an ordinary, affectionate family life.
9. Environmental dependency: the context, especially identification with a group and obedience to an authority, determines what actions are possible.
10. Group contagion: belonging to the group enables the action, each member mapping his behaviour on the other. Fried's assumption was that all these ways of behaving had underlying neurophysiological causes that were worth investigating.
https://aeon.co/essays/is-neuroscience-getting-closer-to-explaining-evil-behaviour
As far as the First is concerned, there is no such thing as hate speech. The First was written with the press in mind, and if you think our press is unruly today, you should read some of the news print in their day.
They knew that a govt could go bad and they saw to it that speech, of any form needed to be protected because one day it would be pointed directly at politicians and govt.
I think our Founders knew better than anyone else what would happen if we allowed govt to start stifling any form of speech, all opposition would cease and Govt would win.
PC is the worst thing to ever have been foist upon the American people. That's why this forum has no filters whatsoever, all speech is free and open. Funny isn't it, all the leftist social media bans speech they don't like. Why is that?
Quote from: alienhand on May 30, 2019, 01:20:43 PM
Well! What are your answers?
People always abuse the First Amendment by using it as an excuse to say whatever they want or act however they like regardless of the people around them. They have no respect for others First Amendment rights. People have the right to not speak or express themselves. That's why cops tell you that "you have the right to remain silence" as a warning that it can be used against you. People also have the right to be free from speech and expression. Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. It's one thing to watch Bill Maher's show. It's expected that they talk politics. But, do we really need to watch an entertainment award show and hear the same crap? No. If you attend a political event, you expect political talk. Should I have to experience it just by walking down the street? No. Should I be forced to be part of your video harassing the Post Office? No.
I hate the terms "hate speech" or "hate crime". Typically, it is not treated equally. A white person can hint something and automatically be labeled racist. Yet, if the rolls are reversed it doesn't get treated the same. Liberals believe that overall benign views, stances, or discussions is an aggression or violence towards a person or group. And, do believe that they can physically attack you. Liberals will play the victim if you fight back after being physically attacked. What makes it worse is you have the Democrat complex of the educational system, media system, social media system, and entertainment system acting as an engine to keep it going as well as a shield to protect it. Asking if I can return violence if I feel offended would just further shows the hypocrisy of the left on the definition of hate/acceptable speech because they would not support if the roles were reversed.
Every question is asked of who gets to decide on any of these matters, as well as who gets to elect these decision makers. The one's asking about Liberal's opinion if violence is necessary, what violence is necessary, can violence go to far is about trying to find out if that particular Liberal has any ethics, decency, or morals.
The only sites I have been banned from are so called conservative sites. Redstate was the first and I was trying hard not to offend but back then I was a bit more outspoken.
But back on topic, 'hate speech' is a problem as there are many people in this world who take these words seriously and too often act on them. I have no problem with Laura Ingraham giving hateful people the microphone but make sure there is a counterpoint. Challenge them, contradict them when they lie, etc etc.
"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." Joseph Goebbels
"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer
Quote from: midcan5 on May 31, 2019, 01:14:51 PM
The only sites I have been banned from are so called conservative sites. Redstate was the first and I was trying hard not to offend but back then I was a bit more outspoken.
But back on topic, 'hate speech' is a problem as there are many people in this world who take these words seriously and too often act on them. I have no problem with Laura Ingraham giving hateful people the microphone but make sure there is a counterpoint. Challenge them, contradict them when they lie, etc etc.
"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." Joseph Goebbels
"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer
You should try to learn more.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 31, 2019, 12:10:14 AM
People always abuse the First Amendment by using it as an excuse to say whatever they want or act however they like regardless of the people around them. They have no respect for others First Amendment rights. People have the right to not speak or express themselves. That's why cops tell you that "you have the right to remain silence" as a warning that it can be used against you. People also have the right to be free from speech and expression. Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. It's one thing to watch Bill Maher's show. It's expected that they talk politics. But, do we really need to watch an entertainment award show and hear the same crap? No. If you attend a political event, you expect political talk. Should I have to experience it just by walking down the street? No. Should I be forced to be part of your video harassing the Post Office? No.
I hate the terms "hate speech" or "hate crime". Typically, it is not treated equally. A white person can hint something and automatically be labeled racist. Yet, if the rolls are reversed it doesn't get treated the same. Liberals believe that overall benign views, stances, or discussions is an aggression or violence towards a person or group. And, do believe that they can physically attack you. Liberals will play the victim if you fight back after being physically attacked. What makes it worse is you have the Democrat complex of the educational system, media system, social media system, and entertainment system acting as an engine to keep it going as well as a shield to protect it. Asking if I can return violence if I feel offended would just further shows the hypocrisy of the left on the definition of hate/acceptable speech because they would not support if the roles were reversed.
Every question is asked of who gets to decide on any of these matters, as well as who gets to elect these decision makers. The one's asking about Liberal's opinion if violence is necessary, what violence is necessary, can violence go to far is about trying to find out if that particular Liberal has any ethics, decency, or morals.
Wow damn! I see. Now that you explained yourself better I really screwed the pooch.
Lesson learned: B4 responding or debating someone make sure I understand the common sense definitions of things and don't go into the weeds as solar calls it.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 31, 2019, 12:10:14 AM
People always abuse the First Amendment by using it as an excuse to say whatever they want or act however they like regardless of the people around them. They have no respect for others First Amendment rights. People have the right to not speak or express themselves. That's why cops tell you that "you have the right to remain silence" as a warning that it can be used against you. People also have the right to be free from speech and expression. Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. It's one thing to watch Bill Maher's show. It's expected that they talk politics. But, do we really need to watch an entertainment award show and hear the same crap? No. If you attend a political event, you expect political talk. Should I have to experience it just by walking down the street? No. Should I be forced to be part of your video harassing the Post Office? No.
I hate the terms "hate speech" or "hate crime". Typically, it is not treated equally. A white person can hint something and automatically be labeled racist. Yet, if the rolls are reversed it doesn't get treated the same. Liberals believe that overall benign views, stances, or discussions is an aggression or violence towards a person or group. And, do believe that they can physically attack you. Liberals will play the victim if you fight back after being physically attacked. What makes it worse is you have the Democrat complex of the educational system, media system, social media system, and entertainment system acting as an engine to keep it going as well as a shield to protect it. Asking if I can return violence if I feel offended would just further shows the hypocrisy of the left on the definition of hate/acceptable speech because they would not support if the roles were reversed.
Every question is asked of who gets to decide on any of these matters, as well as who gets to elect these decision makers. The one's asking about Liberal's opinion if violence is necessary, what violence is necessary, can violence go to far is about trying to find out if that particular Liberal has any ethics, decency, or morals.
There's no such thing.
Quote from: midcan5 on May 31, 2019, 01:14:51 PM
The only sites I have been banned from are so called conservative sites. Redstate was the first and I was trying hard not to offend but back then I was a bit more outspoken.
Try being just an average Conservative on social media, even as a lib, if you go against the narrative, they'll boot you.
.
QuoteBut back on topic, 'hate speech' is a problem as there are many people in this world who take these words seriously and too often act on them. I have no problem with Laura Ingraham giving hateful people the microphone but make sure there is a counterpoint. Challenge them, contradict them when they lie, etc etc.
"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." Joseph Goebbels
"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer
Therein lies the issue, you libs always want to give up Freedoms and Liberty because you "fear" it might offend someone.
Think about that. It's why we fight as hard as we do to preserve the original 10 Amendments. Losing just one will be the beginning of eliminating the rest.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 30, 2019, 08:48:21 AM
Yep, you are a Liberal. Please come back if and when you understand things.
WHO is a liberal? Did you reply to a response that was deleted, because the first reply by
alienhand is not what I would define as "answers from a liberal."
Quote from: Kentucky_Conservative on November 05, 2019, 07:11:55 AM
WHO is a liberal? Did you reply to a response that was deleted, because the first reply by alienhand is not what I would define as "answers from a liberal."
Alienhand is a liberal leech. He has a ton of other posts, Sick was just cutting him off at the knees. Alien was notorious for derailing threads and making them all about himself.
midcan5
QuoteThe only sites I have been banned from are so called conservative sites. Redstate was the first and I was trying hard not to offend but back then I was a bit more outspoken.
Never been banned. Left forums on my own, because I disagreed with the Admin. But, I have friends who were banned from liberal sites, for no reason save it be for speaking the truth.
QuoteBut back on topic, 'hate speech' is a problem as there are many people in this world who take these words seriously and too often act on them. I have no problem with Laura Ingraham giving hateful people the microphone but make sure there is a counterpoint. Challenge them, contradict them when they lie, etc etc.
I laugh when Liberals spew "Hate Speech" nonsense. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING you can say will hurt me. Why? Because, being a conservative, I couldn't give John Brown's Hind Parts" what a liberal, or anyone, thinks of me. Sticks and Stones, and if someone had "Stones" to begin with, they'd not whine and cry when someone spoke harshly to them. Because you liberals are making such a big deal, those being bullied take their own lives. When I was a kid, if you had bully issues, you punched 'em in the nose.
Quote"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." Joseph Goebbels
NAZI PROPAGANDA MINISTER?!?!?! Are you effing kidding me? I'll not degrade myself by even answering that stupidity.
Quote"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer
Philosophical Bafflegag.
The First Amendment does not say or imply that you, as a person, can say whatever you wish to me, and I have to take it. In fact, if you insulted my wife and/or kids, I'd not call it hate speech, I'd call it a Death Wish. But at the very least, I'd have lots of what you call Hate Speech, for you to feast on.
That said, the First Amendment applies only to the Gooberment. They cannot silence us, jail us, or retaliate against us, for speaking our minds. I have Freedom OF Religion, you don't have Freedom FROM Religion. And, Sticks and Stones may Break my Bones, but Words Never can Hurt me.
So, in a Nutshell, there is no such thing as Hate Speech. Blunt hurtful speech is just that. Next thing you know, you liberals will be arresting people for Thought Crimes, ala Minority Report.
Y'all need to grow a collective pair.
Conservatives also understand moral side of the Freedom Of Speech. We don't typically go up to people's faces and shout at them, nor would we do it when the situation doesn't call for it.
Quote from: tiny1 on November 05, 2019, 10:22:37 AM
midcan5 Never been banned. Left forums on my own, because I disagreed with the Admin. But, I have friends who were banned from liberal sites, for no reason save it be for speaking the truth.
I laugh when Liberals spew "Hate Speech" nonsense. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING you can say will hurt me. Why? Because, being a conservative, I couldn't give John Brown's Hind Parts" what a liberal, or anyone, thinks of me. Sticks and Stones, and if someone had "Stones" to begin with, they'd not whine and cry when someone spoke harshly to them. Because you liberals are making such a big deal, those being bullied take their own lives. When I was a kid, if you had bully issues, you punched 'em in the nose. NAZI PROPAGANDA MINISTER?!?!?! Are you effing kidding me? I'll not degrade myself by even answering that stupidity.Philosophical Bafflegag.
The First Amendment does not say or imply that you, as a person, can say whatever you wish to me, and I have to take it. In fact, if you insulted my wife and/or kids, I'd not call it hate speech, I'd call it a Death Wish. But at the very least, I'd have lots of what you call Hate Speech, for you to feast on.
That said, the First Amendment applies only to the Gooberment. They cannot silence us, jail us, or retaliate against us, for speaking our minds. I have Freedom OF Religion, you don't have Freedom FROM Religion. And, Sticks and Stones may Break my Bones, but Words Never can Hurt me.
So, in a Nutshell, there is no such thing as Hate Speech. Blunt hurtful speech is just that. Next thing you know, you liberals will be arresting people for Thought Crimes, ala Minority Report.
Y'all need to grow a collective pair.
Yeah....wish we could apply the 1st amendment to all the social media sites...
Quote from: Mercy Otis Warren on May 07, 2020, 10:24:01 AM
Yeah....wish we could apply the 1st amendment to all the social media sites...
I think it should. Just because they found a way to monopolize and monetize a social media avenue, it is not a private company. It is the modern printing press, and we will not get permission from the King.
If we are going to treat it like a private company, then they have to serve us our (wedding) cake so to speak.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 07, 2020, 12:43:20 PM
I think it should. Just because they found a way to monopolize and monetize a social media avenue, it is not a private company. It is the modern printing press, and we will not get permission from the King.
If we are going to treat it like a private company, then they have to serve us our (wedding) cake so to speak.
Any restrictions placed on them would have to be Federally mandated. That would be in direct violation of the First.
QuoteHere is my definition. Hate Speech is defined as speech that is not based in logic, truth, reason or facts. If you have your speech or what not then present your reasoning behind it.
our founders did not specify between hate speech and love speech if you will.
As we have seen, hate speech is in the eye...or rather the ear of the beholder. It's like hate crimes. You see how well that's worked. No leftist is usually charged with an actual hate crime as defined in the law. It was designd by the left to catch conservatives but they only succeeded in hamstringing themselves. It's that pesky Law of Unintended Consequences.
Quote from: Calypso Jones on May 07, 2020, 01:30:47 PM
our founders did not specify between hate speech and love speech if you will.
As we have seen, hate speech is in the eye...or rather the ear of the beholder. It's like hate crimes. You see how well that's worked. No leftist is usually charged with an actual hate crime as defined in the law. It was designd by the left to catch conservatives but they only succeeded in hamstringing themselves. It's that pesky Law of Unintended Consequences.
In my view hate speech and hate crimes are ridiculous. Only God and the individual know if an act by a person is because of hate.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 07, 2020, 12:43:20 PM
I think it should. Just because they found a way to monopolize and monetize a social media avenue, it is not a private company. It is the modern printing press, and we will not get permission from the King.
If we are going to treat it like a private company, then they have to serve us our (wedding) cake so to speak.
Not sure what you are saying here, I am in the camp that a private, or publicly owned business can do as they want. If they do not want to make a cake or any product that goes against their beliefs, then they do not have too. Its their business. I would not ask a church to allow anyone to speak who goes against their beliefs either. By the same token, if you start a conservative newspaper and it grows to be number one, can a bunch of leftists force you to let them have space on the editorial page against your will?
Quote from: Possum on May 09, 2020, 05:37:16 PM
Not sure what you are saying here, I am in the camp that a private, or publicly owned business can do as they want. If they do not want to make a cake or any product that goes against their beliefs, then they do not have too. Its their business. I would not ask a church to allow anyone to speak who goes against their beliefs either. By the same token, if you start a conservative newspaper and it grows to be number one, can a bunch of leftists force you to let them have space on the editorial page against your will?
They already set the tone: since they went after the baker, they set the standard that a private company can not deny service. Period.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 09, 2020, 06:44:55 PM
They already set the tone: since they went after the baker, they set the standard that a private company can not deny service. Period.
SCOTUS said otherwise. Every case that made it to the court was thrown out as unconstitutional. Any business sued now when win, precedent has been set.
What's sad is it even made it to a lower court in the first place. It should have been tossed with prejudice.
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 08, 2020, 05:27:35 AM
In my view hate speech and hate crimes are ridiculous. Only God and the individual know if an act by a person is because of hate.
agree. We have laws for this. you either broke it or you didn't.
Quote from: Calypso Jones on May 09, 2020, 07:12:59 PM
agree. We have laws for this. you either broke it or you didn't.
OK at what point is a hate crime and hate crime? As some one said ONLY God knows!
Quote from: Solar on May 09, 2020, 06:56:04 PM
SCOTUS said otherwise. Every case that made it to the court was thrown out as unconstitutional. Any business sued now when win, precedent has been set.
What's sad is it even made it to a lower court in the first place. It should have been tossed with prejudice.
Regardless if it was overturned, they set the tone. If they had ignored the baker situation, then they would have the moral stance on private companies.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 12:50:47 AM
Regardless if it was overturned, they set the tone. If they had ignored the baker situation, then they would have the moral stance on private companies.
The tone that was set is no one can be forced to provide a service if it goes against their moral values. That is not a bad thing.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 12:50:47 AM
Regardless if it was overturned, they set the tone. If they had ignored the baker situation, then they would have the moral stance on private companies.
Then you've fallen for the Leftist PC lie. I didn't, and no one I know has, So Maybe if you weren't such a flaming pessimist, you could help our cause in fighting back against such stupidity.
Quote from: Solar on May 10, 2020, 05:33:31 AM
Then you've fallen for the Leftist PC lie. I didn't, and no one I know has, So Maybe if you weren't such a flaming pessimist, you could help our cause in fighting back against such stupidity.
I am not a pessimist. I am just pointing out the fact they set the moral tone on private companies. We both know that they will "um, but" their way out of it because they are hypocrites and fascists. We shouldn't have to run to another platform, because they set the tone on how private companies should serve everybody.
But, social media are not private companies in the natural sense. If I want a wedding cake, I have to pay for it. If I buy a cake, I can do what I want with it. Social media is free. If social media is so private, it wouldn't be free for everybody and their mother. They want us to use it so they can make money on the back end. That's how they all are. Any social media platform wants to grow, no matter if it is a small forum or global communication platform. A small, local baker supporting Trump is irrelevant. A social media company deciding what political opinions are authorized has a global effect.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 09:55:31 AM
I am not a pessimist. I am just pointing out the fact they set the moral tone on private companies. We both know that they will "um, but" their way out of it because they are hypocrites and fascists. We shouldn't have to run to another platform, because they set the tone on how private companies should serve everybody.
But, social media are not private companies in the natural sense. If I want a wedding cake, I have to pay for it. If I buy a cake, I can do what I want with it. Social media is free. If social media is so private, it wouldn't be free for everybody and their mother. They want us to use it so they can make money on the back end. That's how they all are. Any social media platform wants to grow, no matter if it is a small forum or global communication platform. A small, local baker supporting Trump is irrelevant. A social media company deciding what political opinions are authorized has a global effect.
Yeah, I know what you're saying, and the LSM runs with these stories as precedent setting, "there's no turning back" which is a complete bull shit lie.
Use some critical thought and quit rolling over and simply accepting the leftist narrative, nothing could be further from the truth!
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 09:55:31 AM
I am not a pessimist. I am just pointing out the fact they set the moral tone on private companies. We both know that they will "um, but" their way out of it because they are hypocrites and fascists. We shouldn't have to run to another platform, because they set the tone on how private companies should serve everybody.
But, social media are not private companies in the natural sense. If I want a wedding cake, I have to pay for it. If I buy a cake, I can do what I want with it. Social media is free. If social media is so private, it wouldn't be free for everybody and their mother. They want us to use it so they can make money on the back end. That's how they all are. Any social media platform wants to grow, no matter if it is a small forum or global communication platform. A small, local baker supporting Trump is irrelevant. A social media company deciding what political opinions are authorized has a global effect.
Who sets the tone? That baker did not let anyone set the tone for his business. As far as social media goes, if you don't sign up for it, they can't ban you. To get on facebook, you have to signup and agree to their rules. If you agree to the rules, is there a complaint? And again, if you start a conservative newspaper and it grows to be the largest in the nation, should the liberals demand equal access to the editorial page just for the reason that many people buy your paper?
Quote from: Possum on May 10, 2020, 04:22:36 PM
Who sets the tone? That baker did not let anyone set the tone for his business. As far as social media goes, if you don't sign up for it, they can't ban you. To get on facebook, you have to signup and agree to their rules. If you agree to the rules, is there a complaint? And again, if you start a conservative newspaper and it grows to be the largest in the nation, should the liberals demand equal access to the editorial page just for the reason that many people buy your paper?
The way the media runs with this stuff, they established it.
I don't necessarily agree with their decision to deny cake just on the basis of religion, but I overall support a business right to deny service. I would love to deny all lefties, especially since they do it to us on the regular. But, it's one of those things we don't do on just because of spite. It is just a protection for things like no shoes/no shirt/no dogs/etc. Any sensible business doesn't do that because they just want to go along to get along.
Given your newspaper example, is social media Liberal or Conservative?
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 05:37:42 PM
The way the media runs with this stuff, they established it.
I don't necessarily agree with their decision to deny cake just on the basis of religion, but I overall support a business right to deny service. I would love to deny all lefties, especially since they do it to us on the regular. But, it's one of those things we don't do on just because of spite. It is just a protection for things like no shoes/no shirt/no dogs/etc. Any sensible business doesn't do that because they just want to go along to get along.
Given your newspaper example, is social media Liberal or Conservative?
When I think of examples of what I call the social media such as FB or youtube, I would call them liberal but in all honesty I can not think or know anyone who has not been able to post what they want. Nor do I know of anyone who has not been allowed to join just because they have conservative beliefs. But like most of life, I don't go where I am not wanted, and don't let people with whom I don't agree stop me from what I want to do. But I think that is really a conservative trait than anything else. I'm glad the court called it right on this one and think we can expect more more in this way of justice, and that should set the tone in the future.