3 ms·

The problem with censorship is that you must elevate one person into a position of power over another, and give the censor dictatorial powers. If what you were

The problem with censorship is that you must elevate one person into a position of power over another, and give the censor dictatorial powers. If what you were saying were sensible it would make sense to let AT&T disconnect phone service, or stop texting that goes against the political beliefs of the AT&T executives. That's insane. But yet it's what Twitter does. I don't want Big Tech execs being dictators. And if they can censor then they are indeed dictators. If Twitter can say: "We're in charge of speech, because we own the hardware", then so can AT&T (and that's absurd) We have 20-somethings sitting in their Ivory Towers with the power to censor Presidents and Heads of State. It's got to stop. They're children. Presidents are getting censored by children today.

jgeada 6y ago
There is no legitimate value in false speech, despite its mythological value in American psyche. People want the current American president censored because he's spewing lies and falsehoods about every time he opens his mouth. His lies and propaganda have cost over 300000 American lives, and has caused a major deterioration of US' international reputation. Again, no other country on earth (that I'm aware of) subscribes to the notion of unrestricted free speech. Speech that is intended to deceive, mislead, defame and/or slander others has legal consequences in Europe. Even under US' rules, calling people out on false and/or hateful speech, and ostracizing them is exactly the "market of ideas" responding to such speech and suppressing it. You may say what you want, but if your speech is repugnant, we the public are fully entitled to ask you to go talk elsewhere (or not at all). It isn't censorship, it is that we all think you're an ass. Note that actual censorship is already reality for most individuals in the US. For most, what they're allowed to say publicly is beholden to a corporation not minding what they say. If that corporation doesn't like what you said, you get fired and there goes your ability to earn your keep. And without a job, house, food, and healthcare are gone. As mentioned earlier, unrestricted free speech is only a luxury for the rich and powerful to get away with lying for their own benefit without any checks and balances. I think we, the public, deserve a better.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  You never addressed the central question of if you're in favor of censorship then who gets to decide who does the censoring? Who gets to decide what is true or false, or what is misleading v.s. true? The issue is that different people disagree about what is true and what is lies, and that is the entire point of why we have free speech. Reasonable people can disagree. Who decides which reasonable party gets to forcibly muzzle the other? A true patriot is someone who will give his life in the fight to protect free speech, and he will fight to protect even the speech he personally disagrees with. The people who are against free speech are the true fascists, even though they ignorantly think they're against fascism. The truth is they don't know how to fight fascism. Censorship ain't it. Censorship is nothing but a cornerstone of dictatorships. EDIT: Another way to say it is that freedom of speech is required for healthy democracies, because an open debate about political ideas is how societies reach a consensus. The minute you give one person the ability to stop another person from speaking, you have created a dictatorship. Speech is a human right and the most basic of freedoms, and our Founding Fathers put it in our constitution to stop people like you from eroding our freedoms.
  - jgeada 6y ago
    Nice jingoism, repetition of statements of faith (but not fact). This is clearly a waste of time. Nobody is arguing against freedom of speech, what every other country objects to is is unrestricted freedom of speech, meaning protection of lies, propaganda, slander, calumny, defamation and inciting of violence as being acceptable forms of free speech. I can explain it to you, I can't make you understand this: no other country in the world, no other people in the world, accept that unrestricted free speech is a good thing. Moreover, those countries believe it so strongly that there are laws against it. European countries are functioning democracies. Clearly your point that unrestricted free speech is essential to democracy is false. I'm not going to bother responding any further.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      America already has restrictions on speech including slander laws, defamation, and inciting violence. So yes there is nuance to this issue like all others. Nuance seems to be something the left is incapable of comprehending lately. If you try to make "lies" and "propaganda" also be illegal that' where the nuance begins and where your argument fails, for all the reasons I already gave, and will not bother repeating, except to say that reasonable people will disagree about what truth is and what is propaganda. So if you outlaw lies you must appoint some people to become the arbiters of truth, and you need to admit you have not answered how that can be done. All you've done is hurl insults and propaganda of your own, which according to you should've been censored.

jgeada 6y ago

There is no legitimate value in false speech, despite its mythological value in American psyche. People want the current American president censored because he's spewing lies and falsehoods about every time he opens his mouth. His lies and propaganda have cost over 300000 American lives, and has caused a major deterioration of US' international reputation. Again, no other country on earth (that I'm aware of) subscribes to the notion of unrestricted free speech. Speech that is intended to deceive, mislead, defame and/or slander others has legal consequences in Europe. Even under US' rules, calling people out on false and/or hateful speech, and ostracizing them is exactly the "market of ideas" responding to such speech and suppressing it. You may say what you want, but if your speech is repugnant, we the public are fully entitled to ask you to go talk elsewhere (or not at all). It isn't censorship, it is that we all think you're an ass. Note that actual censorship is already reality for most individuals in the US. For most, what they're allowed to say publicly is beholden to a corporation not minding what they say. If that corporation doesn't like what you said, you get fired and there goes your ability to earn your keep. And without a job, house, food, and healthcare are gone. As mentioned earlier, unrestricted free speech is only a luxury for the rich and powerful to get away with lying for their own benefit without any checks and balances. I think we, the public, deserve a better.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
You never addressed the central question of if you're in favor of censorship then who gets to decide who does the censoring? Who gets to decide what is true or false, or what is misleading v.s. true? The issue is that different people disagree about what is true and what is lies, and that is the entire point of why we have free speech. Reasonable people can disagree. Who decides which reasonable party gets to forcibly muzzle the other? A true patriot is someone who will give his life in the fight to protect free speech, and he will fight to protect even the speech he personally disagrees with. The people who are against free speech are the true fascists, even though they ignorantly think they're against fascism. The truth is they don't know how to fight fascism. Censorship ain't it. Censorship is nothing but a cornerstone of dictatorships. EDIT: Another way to say it is that freedom of speech is required for healthy democracies, because an open debate about political ideas is how societies reach a consensus. The minute you give one person the ability to stop another person from speaking, you have created a dictatorship. Speech is a human right and the most basic of freedoms, and our Founding Fathers put it in our constitution to stop people like you from eroding our freedoms.
- jgeada 6y ago
  Nice jingoism, repetition of statements of faith (but not fact). This is clearly a waste of time. Nobody is arguing against freedom of speech, what every other country objects to is is unrestricted freedom of speech, meaning protection of lies, propaganda, slander, calumny, defamation and inciting of violence as being acceptable forms of free speech. I can explain it to you, I can't make you understand this: no other country in the world, no other people in the world, accept that unrestricted free speech is a good thing. Moreover, those countries believe it so strongly that there are laws against it. European countries are functioning democracies. Clearly your point that unrestricted free speech is essential to democracy is false. I'm not going to bother responding any further.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    America already has restrictions on speech including slander laws, defamation, and inciting violence. So yes there is nuance to this issue like all others. Nuance seems to be something the left is incapable of comprehending lately. If you try to make "lies" and "propaganda" also be illegal that' where the nuance begins and where your argument fails, for all the reasons I already gave, and will not bother repeating, except to say that reasonable people will disagree about what truth is and what is propaganda. So if you outlaw lies you must appoint some people to become the arbiters of truth, and you need to admit you have not answered how that can be done. All you've done is hurl insults and propaganda of your own, which according to you should've been censored.