Sign in to follow this  
BackUpTheTruck

Internet Free Speech Thread

175 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, floplag said:

It should spark universal outrage.  Censorship is censorship even if you agree with it.   If you truly support the First Amendment it has to apply to those you disagree with at least as much as those you support. 
And please dont bother playing the "but its hate speech" card, that label is being applied to washing detergent anymore in some cases and is being used far to broadly to justify what is being done. 

YouTube is a private company, which means it's allowed to regulate speech on its website. Should the government force YouTube to not censor what it chooses to censor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Taylor said:

YouTube is a private company, which means it's allowed to regulate speech on its website. Should the government force YouTube to not censor what it chooses to censor?

Yes, they are public, but as the literal standard for the content type, they have a responsibility.
Still though its funny how that doesnt mean much in other cases like Hobby Lobby, or Chick-Fil-A?  or a certain bakery weve all heard of?   Funny how that only seems to matter in one direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floplag said:

Yes, they are public, but as the literal standard for the content type, they have a responsibility.
Still though its funny how that doesnt mean much in other cases like Hobby Lobby, or Chick-Fil-A?  or a certain bakery weve all heard of?   Funny how that only seems to matter in one direction.

Serving a customer is different than allowing someone to post hateful and violence-inciting content for the world to see. 

I never had a beef (pun intended) with Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Taylor said:

Serving a customer is different than allowing someone to post hateful and violence-inciting content for the world to see. 

I never had a beef (pun intended) with Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby. 

When their business is to post content created by other people, AKA customers, no, it really isnt any different.  Especially when what is or is not hateful or inciteful has become a catch all for anything not uber liberal, the word has almost no meaning at this point. 

Heres the tricky part though, it really doesn't matter... people have the right to be assholes and say what they will as long as it doesnt deny another person their rights or put them in danger. Standing on a soap box yelling hateful stuff, dont not violate your rights even if it offends you.   There is no right to not be offended.  If you believe in free speech it must, absolutely must, extended to those who offend you, anger you, and make you want to hurt them for the words they speak.  If you do not extend them that right, then it is you who is in violation of free speech, not them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can you go into a store start yelling at other costumers and generally be disruptive?  Does the store not have a right to ask you to leave?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floplag said:

When their business is to post content created by other people, AKA customers, no, it really isnt any different.  Especially when what is or is not hateful or inciteful has become a catch all for anything not uber liberal, the word has almost no meaning at this point. 

I agree that there's a risk of that happening. Non-hate speech gets classified as hate speech because it goes against the views of the controlling party.

However, that's not what happened here. YouTube hasn't created a "catch all" that censors anything not uber-liberal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I agree that there's a risk of that happening. Non-hate speech gets classified as hate speech because it goes against the views of the controlling party.

However, that's not what happened here. YouTube hasn't created a "catch all" that censors anything not uber-liberal. 

I disagree, some of the people it has censored did not fall under that category at all.  Either way it shouldn't have happened at all under that guise if it didn't absolutely fit the actual definition of it especially when similar stances from liberals that used virtually the same language were not even touched.   I read people on both sides, and this is absolutely adversely affecting one side far more than the other save for a few token obvious cases they use the try to make things look legit.
FFS they tried to tell us Farrakhan was a conservative not long ago lets not forget. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, floplag said:

If you truly support the First Amendment it has to apply to those you disagree with at least as much as those you support. 
And please dont bother playing the "but its hate speech" card...8

I'm going to play the "have you read the First Amendment?" card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

I'm going to play the "have you read the First Amendment?" card?

Yes i have, but lets just paste it here for sake of argument:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, now, since there is nothing in there about being offended, or any definition of hate speech, or even a reference to incitement... please explain hwhich part of it i supposedly haven't read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yes i have, but lets just paste it here for sake of argument:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, now, since there is nothing in there about being offended, or any definition of hate speech, or even a reference to incitement... please explain hwhich part of it i supposedly haven't read?

Oh boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

If Congress makes a law that abridges those who abridge free speech, that law would effectively help free speech. (Double negative = a positive)

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Adam said:

It’s  okay to think what youtube is doing is wrong but respect their right to operate as they wish

True. That's good advice for flop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Taylor said:

True. That's good advice for flop.

lol, we both know you would feel 100% different if it was your side getting censored, but lets ride that "private company" horse till it drops i guess all while suing bakeries and talking trash on Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A and literally every other non left leaning business out there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bakery lawsuit was shot down in the Supreme Court. Yay, justice.

Hobby Lobby is still thriving closing on Sunday and not offering abortion coverage. Yay, consumer choice.

Chick-Fill-A saw a rise in sales during the gay boycott. Yay, diversity! 

Nothing you have posted has merit. Yay, fwd, fwd, fwd, fwd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floplag said:

lol, we both know you would feel 100% different if it was your side getting censored, but lets ride that "private company" horse till it drops i guess all while suing bakeries and talking trash on Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A and literally every other non left leaning business out there. 

So you think that the bakery lawsuit was legit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blarg said:

The bakery lawsuit was shot down in the Supreme Court. Yay, justice.

Hobby Lobby is still thriving closing on Sunday and not offering abortion coverage. Yay, consumer choice.

Chick-Fill-A saw a rise in sales during the gay boycott. Yay, diversity! 

Nothing you have posted has merit. Yay, fwd, fwd, fwd, fwd...

On the contrary, in all cases there was outrage from one side that is lacking now and actually leading the charge to silence the others.
Its a one sides argument thats basically saying F*ck literally everyone not a liberal extremists. 

 

4 hours ago, RallyMo said:

So you think that the bakery lawsuit was legit?

I think it was complete horseshit and a waste of time in the legal system.   But the outrage was palpable and take nall the way to SCOTUS, i didnt see anyone playing the "private company" card then but man oh man is it in play now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blarg said:

None of this stood the test of time and we are not talking decades but more like less than two years. 

Fair point, but over the next 2 years what affect do you think this will have i wonder?
Silencing the conservative voices on the larger popular platforms leading up to an election isn't an accident.   It isnt like these people are new to the service and frankly helped build the damned thing after all since none of them are getting mainstream media jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options