21 ms·

It pretty much is and is a chilling attempt at limiting speech. Free press, is free press. CNN and MSNBC both spread their share of misinformation. You need to

by surge 6y ago

It pretty much is and is a chilling attempt at limiting speech. Free press, is free press. CNN and MSNBC both spread their share of misinformation. You need to be able to watch multiple news sources with different takes in a free society, to determine whose wrong or whose omitting key facts in an attempt to frame the news.

hogFeast 6y ago
When you think people disagree with you because they are evil, any action is justfiable (internally).
- TrispusAttucks 6y ago
  It's even worse when you think people are evil simply because they disagree with you!
  - protonfish 6y ago
    What's even worse is when people are evil and nobody fights against them while they overthrow your government and commit genocide.
  - wdn 6y ago
    You should see how upset people were when you told them you think Trump is a great president. At my last job, the IT admin was so upset that he told me that he will not do any of my incidents. No discussion what so ever.
    - bonestamp2 6y ago
      That's unfortunate that he chose to respond that way. I might disagree with you on Trump but I think we probably have far more in common than we disagree on. I don't know how anyone thinks we're going to solve our real problems if we can't have constructive conversations about where we agree and disagree, and how we can both compromise to work toward what is probably a shared goal. I believe most Americans have the same basic goals: good health, prosperity, security, and strong community. Most of where we disagree is around how to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, too many people get caught up in the "how" and that it makes it so much harder to get anything done.
    - brighton36 6y ago
      There's nothing more just than vengeance.
      - teddyh 6y ago
        “Vengeance is at the core of many of the world's most enduring and moronic conflicts.” — http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275 http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
It may be. The key is whether the misinformation present directed others to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. CNN/MSNBC may also have misinformation, but their misinformation may not be in the same class, specifically something that could motivate some subset of their viewers to commit insurrection by attempting to detain and possibly murder elected representatives. In either case, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. Edited based on feedback.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > To me, it could also be the modern day version of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. That legal argument has been overturned precisely because it has no real limiting principle: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    While it's not the best, people are familiar with it. The replacement is certainly more accurate. In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?
    - rayiner 6y ago
      "Incitement" and "imminent lawless action" are extremely narrow compared to what people are talking about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Even openly advocating violence is protected by the first amendment under the Supreme Court's Brandenburg decision.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
        They are narrowly interpreted as it relates to individuals, but I'm not sure that same interpretation would be applied to media outlets. In terms of liability, as a property owner I have a much lower standards for care, custody, and control of an empty piece of property I have with a no trespassing sign than a corporation has for a sports stadium they run. I'm not certain that the standards for free speech by an individual in a single instance would be the same as the standards for a large media corporation across multiple instances. How narrowly the court interprets "incitement" and "imminent lawless action" may be a function of the entity making them. An individual who is making political speech could say something that is considered protected, while a large corporation saying the same thing repeatedly, in a different context, may not be protected in the same way.
ineptech 6y ago
How is asking Fox for viewership numbers, "a chilling attempt at limiting speech"?
- colpabar 6y ago
  Would you feel the same way if house republicans sent letters to twitter asking how many users used the #blm hashtag last summer? It seems to me that we'd get lots of headlines declaring that they were attempting to silence anyone in favor of police reform.
- LanceH 6y ago
  It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
      - Alupis 6y ago
        You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.

by surge 6y ago

hogFeast 6y ago

When you think people disagree with you because they are evil, any action is justfiable (internally).

TrispusAttucks 6y ago
It's even worse when you think people are evil simply because they disagree with you!
- protonfish 6y ago
  What's even worse is when people are evil and nobody fights against them while they overthrow your government and commit genocide.
- wdn 6y ago
  You should see how upset people were when you told them you think Trump is a great president. At my last job, the IT admin was so upset that he told me that he will not do any of my incidents. No discussion what so ever.
  - bonestamp2 6y ago
    That's unfortunate that he chose to respond that way. I might disagree with you on Trump but I think we probably have far more in common than we disagree on. I don't know how anyone thinks we're going to solve our real problems if we can't have constructive conversations about where we agree and disagree, and how we can both compromise to work toward what is probably a shared goal. I believe most Americans have the same basic goals: good health, prosperity, security, and strong community. Most of where we disagree is around how to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, too many people get caught up in the "how" and that it makes it so much harder to get anything done.
  - brighton36 6y ago
    There's nothing more just than vengeance.
    - teddyh 6y ago
      “Vengeance is at the core of many of the world's most enduring and moronic conflicts.” — http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275 http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=275

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

It may be. The key is whether the misinformation present directed others to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. CNN/MSNBC may also have misinformation, but their misinformation may not be in the same class, specifically something that could motivate some subset of their viewers to commit insurrection by attempting to detain and possibly murder elected representatives. In either case, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. Edited based on feedback.

bhupy 6y ago
> To me, it could also be the modern day version of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. That legal argument has been overturned precisely because it has no real limiting principle: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  While it's not the best, people are familiar with it. The replacement is certainly more accurate. In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    "Incitement" and "imminent lawless action" are extremely narrow compared to what people are talking about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Even openly advocating violence is protected by the first amendment under the Supreme Court's Brandenburg decision.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      They are narrowly interpreted as it relates to individuals, but I'm not sure that same interpretation would be applied to media outlets. In terms of liability, as a property owner I have a much lower standards for care, custody, and control of an empty piece of property I have with a no trespassing sign than a corporation has for a sports stadium they run. I'm not certain that the standards for free speech by an individual in a single instance would be the same as the standards for a large media corporation across multiple instances. How narrowly the court interprets "incitement" and "imminent lawless action" may be a function of the entity making them. An individual who is making political speech could say something that is considered protected, while a large corporation saying the same thing repeatedly, in a different context, may not be protected in the same way.

ineptech 6y ago

How is asking Fox for viewership numbers, "a chilling attempt at limiting speech"?

colpabar 6y ago
Would you feel the same way if house republicans sent letters to twitter asking how many users used the #blm hashtag last summer? It seems to me that we'd get lots of headlines declaring that they were attempting to silence anyone in favor of police reform.
LanceH 6y ago
It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.
- Alupis 6y ago
  > It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
    - Alupis 6y ago
      You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.