3 ms·

Child porn is not protected speech. Every country has limits to freedom of speech. In the US you can't lie to a Federal Officer, you can't distribute or posses

Child porn is not protected speech. Every country has limits to freedom of speech. In the US you can't lie to a Federal Officer, you can't distribute or possess images of child abuse and you cannot advocate for a direct an imminent threat of an individual. Those are all pretty reasonable. You CAN have a fictional representation of child abuse (writing/drawing) which is illegal in the UK, Australia and pretty much any other country except Japan. Speech is tricky. Every country has limitations. China has freedom of speech in their constitution, so a law by itself is not enough to ensure you actually have that freedom.

tayo42 6y ago
Right free speech isn't straight forward.I think that is lost on alot of these commenters. But there's two layers here, does free speech apply to social media. No it doesn't, it's not the government. What would be free speech violation is if you criticized the government then had the government tell the social media company to remove something. Then there's the hypothetical, if social media companies had to listen free speech. Is spreading manipulative false information protected free speech? That seems abusive to me, close to slander.That's not protected speech.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > slander Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections. Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue. There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.
  - tayo42 6y ago
    > They are massive and they control narratives. they might only control the narrative on twitter. only around 10% of americans would be a monthly active user on twitter. the world is not twitter, or social media. It might feel like that. Plently of people are still getting their news from other places. the article is still on nypost. > is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? Lets say CNN decides to not publish this story, is that election interference? Now their viewers won't know about it. You could also say its election interference to run an unfounded story in the first place

tayo42 6y ago

Right free speech isn't straight forward.I think that is lost on alot of these commenters. But there's two layers here, does free speech apply to social media. No it doesn't, it's not the government. What would be free speech violation is if you criticized the government then had the government tell the social media company to remove something. Then there's the hypothetical, if social media companies had to listen free speech. Is spreading manipulative false information protected free speech? That seems abusive to me, close to slander.That's not protected speech.

djsumdog 6y ago
> slander Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections. Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue. There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.
- tayo42 6y ago
  > They are massive and they control narratives. they might only control the narrative on twitter. only around 10% of americans would be a monthly active user on twitter. the world is not twitter, or social media. It might feel like that. Plently of people are still getting their news from other places. the article is still on nypost. > is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? Lets say CNN decides to not publish this story, is that election interference? Now their viewers won't know about it. You could also say its election interference to run an unfounded story in the first place