US Government removing social media posts it views as misinformation ?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Australia is racing to vaccinate the population before this Delta strain overwhelms their health system. Not much immunity there, due to lack of infections in the populace until now.
The Australian police looked overwhelmed, outnumbered, and facing a very violent crowd in many instances.
Love the comment section of The Last Refuge.
The Australian police looked overwhelmed, outnumbered, and facing a very violent crowd in many instances.
Love the comment section of The Last Refuge.
Last edited:
There is obvious danger to excessive restrictions but there is also obvious danger to anarchical freedom. You have to have a balance of measured regulation and freedom. You can’t have society without structure, and structure often means imposing expected standards of practice and conduct. If we do impose a new expectation, then we obviously need to make sure that it operates in a specific manner, and that it isn’t taken advantage of by those who wish to benefit themselves.
I wouldn’t call a standard which prevents the government or its minions from silencing speech critical of said government or its policies and initiatives new. The protection we’ve placed on free speech especially when said speech is directed at government actions as served us well for centuries. Not sure why some want to limit those freedoms now. Odd thing is the group now supporting the stripping away of our first amendment rights has historically been among its strongest defenders. Odd how partisanship has changed some.
I have always been for limiting the ability of the dumb and the evil to ruin things for the rest of us. Why should I be put in danger because my next door neighbor wants to drive his car 150 mph on the freeway? Hence, I put a law in place so he is less likely to do that.
Same thing goes for one moron convincing another moron that taking Ivermectin is less troublesome than getting a vaccine and that person coming to work in the next cubicle to me. The point at which your freedoms start to effect others is the point at which your freedoms come under the ability of society to regulate. I don’t believe that there should be punitive repercussions against people because they have dumb opinions which they voice in public places (like the blacklisting done in Hollywood during the red scare) but I think companies should be able to reserve the right not to publish content that does a disservice to the rest of their clients. Freedom of speech is also the freedom not to promote other people’s speech.
Last edited:
Ugg. Society isn’t regulating the federal government is and that is and always will be the problem. I have zero problems with anyone challenging speech as incorrect. It’s the foundation of our personal freedoms. The government banning speech is not. The slope is too slippery. There is zero reason a scientist should be silenced for suggesting the virus may have originated from a lab. Wait until the tables are turned and it’s a conservative Admin trying to silence liberal activist who question that Admin’s positions. This shouldn’t be a Dem or Pub issue as both sides can take such actions when in charge. This is an issue of personal freedom and government restrictions of its people…period.
The federal government represents our society. That’s the theory behind a republic. You argue slippery slope of government regulation. I argue slippery slope of letting every imbecile pronounce their opinion as if it’s fact. It’s like a guitar signal. Not enough of a signal let through and you don’t get any sound at all. Too much signal let through and you get interference which can be just as unpleasant if not more so.
There are just as many examples of unrestrained free speech being detrimental to society as there are of restrained speech being detrimental to society. Often it’s the difference between violent civil wars and dictatorships. And half the time, civil wars end in dictatorships anyway.
Last edited:
Federal governments represent society until they don’t. That my friend is the problem. Never dreamed I would see the day when the left was advocating the suppression of the first amendment by the government. How things have changed.
Here's what drew crickets years ago when the press was unflattering about him personally:
Trump on Twitter 2016: “It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!”
But if Biden expresses his opinion about demonstrably false information killing American's the slope suddenly gets slippery?
Trump on Twitter 2016: “It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!”
But if Biden expresses his opinion about demonstrably false information killing American's the slope suddenly gets slippery?
I don’t advocate suppression of the first amendment. I advocate moderation of certain types of speech with an Avenue for appeal, and no repercussion for a piece of speech being removed.
I advocate a living constitution that adapts to the difficulties that our society faces. If people are using loopholes in the freedoms they are given to the detriment of society, then those loopholes should be changed.
Can I say, that I’m getting fed up with news channels asking people to “do your own research” on various medical subjects. Sure some people are qualified or have the ability to do their own research. Many people, however; have little to no ability to do their own research. They should be saying, “if you payed attention in school enough to know how to do research, do your own research. But, if you didn’t do so well in school and never learned that skill? Leave it up to the experts and stop getting in the way”
An opinion is one thing, using the federal government or an agent of the same to silence citizens is something entirely different. If Trump banned or otherwise prohibited media outlets or reporters from publishing speech with which he disagreed then you would have your equivalent. This isn’t that complicated.
That simply isn’t plausible. Ordinary people don’t have the means to challenge the federal government. Which is why throughout history federal governments have been so successful in the suppression of critics when they’ve been so inclined. The entity with the power should always be viewed with great caution and any restrictions it places upon its people be view with strict scrutiny. Such has been the standard for years. The left once supported such a view along with the protection of our civil liberties from abuse of those in power. Sadly this appears to be no longer the case.
-- "Australia is racing to vaccinate the population before this Delta strain overwhelms their health system. Not much immunity there, due to lack of infections in the populace until now."
The vast majority of western dry forests are at risk of large, high-intensity fire because of the effects of poor forest management over the past century. The primary factors that lead to current forest conditions include, ... fire suppression....
Sounds familiar.... overly suppress the disease, and it only burns hotter later..
What if you were the imbecile an were too stupid to realize it ?
The vast majority of western dry forests are at risk of large, high-intensity fire because of the effects of poor forest management over the past century. The primary factors that lead to current forest conditions include, ... fire suppression....
Sounds familiar.... overly suppress the disease, and it only burns hotter later..
ohhhh... we found the dictator... "...letting every imbecile pronounce their opinion"
What if you were the imbecile an were too stupid to realize it ?
FWIW my friends in Sydney blame their low vaccination rates and lockdown on their federal government not buying enough mRNA vaccine earlier and a reluctance to take the Astra Zenica vaccine which is produced locally and more available. They are optimistic about the lockdown being eased up soon.
Australia seems like a case study on what not to do as a federal government during a pandemic as far as it relates to vaccines
What's gone wrong with Australia's vaccine rollout?
The country has been far slower than others including the UK and the US to immunise its population.
www.google.com
Thats a crisis.What's gone wrong with Australia's vaccine rollout?
The country has been far slower than others including the UK and the US to immunise its population.www.google.com
It's still Facebook making the determination to remove the posts, which they should have been doing all along. Now the FCC needs to bring back the truth in news reporting rule. FoxNews, OAN, NewsMax, and MSNBC will have to dub themselves opinion talk content instead of passing their crap off as news.
Is it? FB is reliant upon the federal government for all types of tax treatments as well as other rulings. To think FB isn’t going to be inclined to follow the Fed’s instructions to delete the posts it flags is naive. People miss the overwhelming power of our federal government in these discussions.
Why should posts from Doctors suggesting Covid originated from a Chinese lab be removed? I’ve yet to hear a good reason which would pass the strict scrutiny test I would argue needs to be met to ban speech.
Yep..However who knew AZ vaccines would get such a bad rep? Vaccine-wise Canada was worse as it had no local source of vaccine production and didn’t jump on buying as early as they could have. Still the deaths per capita in both countries were far lower than in the US.
That is not the only type of speech they were removing. They were removing all sorts of conspiracy type speech, including speech regarding conspiracy surrounding Donald Trump. I know because before she passed, my mom was complaining to me about wackaddoodle comments she made about trump being removed. Which I think were probably fairly removed under facebook’s guidance.
Not sure “well…they were banning other speech as well” is a compelling argument. Sort of like we killed some good people but we killed some bad guys as well. Banning certain speech as a cover for banning speech would should have never been removed isn’t a good argument. The fact it is being brought up as justification is troublesome imo.
Exactly. Did anyone here complain about Facebook's removing posts that violated their policy (like your Mom's) that weren't killing anyone. But if the Biden exercises his free speech rights to express his opinion about posts that convey false information that can harm a large number of Americans, suddenly it's an issue for some.
As for the implied power of the government, the so called 'fake news' media stood up to Trump. Yes, Trump's DOJ got caught secretly spying on and hacking reporters they didn't like, but Biden's and Garland are not playing that game.
It makes for a more civil discourse on a platform that was never meant to be a political vehicle for candidate campaigns and influence machines.
Yet FB has in fact become a political vehicle with the White House now flagging speech for jt to remove.
What's the difference between removing speech on a private platform and making a propoganda network?
1). The public doesn’t disseminate speech through networks.
2). I don’t like what the networks have become. However, as long as the views of both major political parties are represented in the market place I suppose I can live with the same. Not that I have any options.
I suppose I would argue that the networks are included when we're talking about the 'public'. The government doesn't necessarily tell the networks what they can't say... but they do push their agendas through them. Honestly, I'm not even sure what my argument is here... but I think there is something amiss with allowing echo chamber news media networks to form, but not allowing social media networks to do the same if they so desire. Ideally you wouldn't want either one to be possible.
One thing I will say, is that the freedom of speech, as it was influenced from the British Bill of Rights of 1689 was meant to specifically apply to speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament. Obviously, in our Republic, that freedom has been expanded considerably; however, it might be time to consider the possible detriments to the current or future extent of that expansion.
Disagree….history shows us time and time again that governments who suppress citizens ability to speak freely and especially speech which is critical of government actions are often become tyrannical organizations which use said power to control the masses often against their will. Be careful what you wish for. Next time it might be a Pub admin trying to silence the left on speech critical of their policies or agenda. A precedent is a precedent.
The level of exception to the freedom we are talking about, is not one that will allow tyranny unless it is allowed to progress to an outrageous extent. For example, I don’t think anyone would insinuate that the Canadian government has a propensity for historic tyranny (at least not anymore than any other Western ally we have) but their constitutional guarantee, while providing for freedom of expression, also acknowledges that:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
Such code has been used in Canada to acknowledge that certain laws have abridged the guaranteed freedom of expression, but are reasonable limits on the freedom. (Their cases were specifically related to hate speech and endorsement of genocide)
If we want to address ‘reasonable’ limits to free speech in the US, here are some existing limits that are upheld in at least a few states: obscenity, defamation,incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,fighting words,fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct.
I’m not sure how you can acknowledge that so many various limits already exist in our society, then also say that limits to blanket free speech are fundamentally tyrannical on nature. Would that not mean that we are already in a tyrannical society? If not, then why would an additional, well considered and ‘reasonable’ limit be automatically tyrannical?
Now, if you would like to argue that this limit is ‘unreasonable’ or unjustifiable, then I might be willing to listen to that argument. I just refuse to acknowledge any argument that points to history saying that free speech is a roadway to tyranny considering the amount of populist tyrants who have used free speech to their advantage.
Last edited:
Ok….so what protects minorities from being silenced by the whims of the majority?
What protects the majority from the whims of the minority?
Does it really matter that you’re allowed to speak as much as you want if your opinion does little to influence the trajectory of the nation even though your opinion is in the broad consensus?
Are you suggesting the majority are equally at risk of oppression as minorities ? Our nations history suggest you’re dead wrong .
Oppression of the speech of minorities was never the main issue for the mistreatment of racial minorities.
One problem was that the majority when it sided with the improvement of the circumstances for minorities (like getting rid of slavery) was often blocked by a vocal minority.
Oppression of the speech of minorities was never the main issue for the mistreatment of racial minorities.
One problem was that the majority when it sided with the improvement of the circumstances for minorities (like getting rid of slavery) was often blocked by a vocal minority.
I’m speaking of the prospect of minorities not being able to speak out against racial discrimination, police brutality, inequities in housing, education, etc…. We believe it’s a good idea to trust the majority to determine what speech minorities are allowed to disseminate. That’s a very dangerous proposition. We’ve seen minorities silenced throughout world history when the majority wants to oppress (or worse) the same.
