5 ms·

You're welcome to say it. Others should not be forced to listen, repeat, or amplify what you say.

by JohnTHaller 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_Microft 6y ago
That’s why I don’t like „retweets are not endorsements“. Spreading a message is endorsement, one way or another. They have the choice to retweet or not and when they choose to spread the message, they become co-responsible for its consequences.
- gxs 6y ago
  But the key word is forced isn't it? Do we really have to police what people are allowed to endorse?
strangattractor 6y ago
There is a difference between letting someone speak freely and handing them a megaphone. The Constitution does not give individuals the freedom to incite violence. It is designed to prevent it. Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech.
- La1n 6y ago
  >Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech. This is not a given conclusion, they could just be interested in speech that negatively affects a geopolitical rival.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Russia believes in free speech when that speech incites social unrest in the US. When it incites social unrest in Russia? Not so much.
  - ratsmack 6y ago
    > Russian-based firm DDoS-Guard said in a statement to The Hill it started servicing Parler on Sunday night. The firm said Parler is not using DDoS-Guard as a hosting site, but did not detail what services it is providing the platform. I don't know if your statement is true, and since this thread is about "truth", maybe this needs further investigation.
engineer_22 6y ago
Fine - let's run with this. We set up a system where certain ideas are not tolerated. There is a preferential system for use of mass communication platforms. Only officially sanctioned speakers or patterns of thought are allowed to be broadcast to the mass. A step further: Who decides what is acceptable? And on what grounds shall we suspend the speech of others? What stops this from becoming suppression of political speech?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I believe you've described something akin to the existing infrastructure for issuing radio broadcast licenses via the FCC. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... There is likely some guidance to be had on this topic from studying the way the FCC has navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of authorizing broadcast licenses vs. trampling the First Amendment rights of American citizens.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  This is a little like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits, because who decides what speed is safe for driving? We all decide, collectively. That is how society works: a group of people making tradeoffs. Individual sacrifices for the benefit of the group. Obviously, no tradeoff will make every single person happy. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and let people do 90 in a school zone.
  - gxs 6y ago
    The difference is our constitution doesn't explicitly say to remove speed limits. If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Sure, a constitution is just a formalization of those tradeoffs. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with this article or the parallel current events.

You're welcome to say it. Others should not be forced to listen, repeat, or amplify what you say.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

_Microft 6y ago

That’s why I don’t like „retweets are not endorsements“. Spreading a message is endorsement, one way or another. They have the choice to retweet or not and when they choose to spread the message, they become co-responsible for its consequences.

gxs 6y ago
But the key word is forced isn't it? Do we really have to police what people are allowed to endorse?

strangattractor 6y ago

There is a difference between letting someone speak freely and handing them a megaphone. The Constitution does not give individuals the freedom to incite violence. It is designed to prevent it. Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech.

La1n 6y ago
>Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech. This is not a given conclusion, they could just be interested in speech that negatively affects a geopolitical rival.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Russia believes in free speech when that speech incites social unrest in the US. When it incites social unrest in Russia? Not so much.
- ratsmack 6y ago
  > Russian-based firm DDoS-Guard said in a statement to The Hill it started servicing Parler on Sunday night. The firm said Parler is not using DDoS-Guard as a hosting site, but did not detail what services it is providing the platform. I don't know if your statement is true, and since this thread is about "truth", maybe this needs further investigation.

engineer_22 6y ago

Fine - let's run with this. We set up a system where certain ideas are not tolerated. There is a preferential system for use of mass communication platforms. Only officially sanctioned speakers or patterns of thought are allowed to be broadcast to the mass. A step further: Who decides what is acceptable? And on what grounds shall we suspend the speech of others? What stops this from becoming suppression of political speech?

shadowgovt 6y ago
I believe you've described something akin to the existing infrastructure for issuing radio broadcast licenses via the FCC. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... There is likely some guidance to be had on this topic from studying the way the FCC has navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of authorizing broadcast licenses vs. trampling the First Amendment rights of American citizens.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
This is a little like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits, because who decides what speed is safe for driving? We all decide, collectively. That is how society works: a group of people making tradeoffs. Individual sacrifices for the benefit of the group. Obviously, no tradeoff will make every single person happy. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and let people do 90 in a school zone.
- gxs 6y ago
  The difference is our constitution doesn't explicitly say to remove speed limits. If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Sure, a constitution is just a formalization of those tradeoffs. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with this article or the parallel current events.