Holocaust deniers, yes; inciters of violence, no

[vraiblonde]

Should We Welcome Holocaust Deniers And Inciters To Violence To Social Media Platforms In The Name Of Free Speech? | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

The whole story is behind a paywall, which I refuse to pay, but I think the whole concept of "free speech" is worth discussing.

It's anyone's right to be a dumbass, and we see it every single day. If we outlaw dumbasses, it would be an amazing world but there would only be me and a handful of others in it. Holocaust denial doesn't hurt anyone, just some feelsies. It's like denying the moon landing took place.

Calling for violence or making violent threats, however, is something else entirely. Unlike mere opinion, it's a call to action - an action that does physically hurt people.

I understand that the progcultists think their feels are real and when someone offends or disagrees with them it's like a murder, but that goes back to it not being against the law to be a dumbass. Their whining and tantrums don't need to be soothed or acted upon in any way- we can just let them have their fits. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, yeah, throw yourself on the floor, Jack. Give us a good show.



So what are your thoughts on "free speech"? Completely free, or should there be some limits?

 

[Kyle]

No limits.

 

[Ken King]

No limits.

Absolutely no limits. By the way that doesn't mean "no consequences".

 

[vraiblonde]

No limits.

No limits at all? As in, would someone be able to go into a Chick-Fil-A and start screaming profanity and there's nothing CFA could do about it? Could they come on here and solicit pedophiles to their kiddie rape group and I couldn't ban them or even remove their posts?

 

[vraiblonde]

Absolutely no limits. By the way that doesn't mean "no consequences".

I'll ask you the same question:

No limits at all? As in, would someone be able to go into a Chick-Fil-A and start screaming profanity and there's nothing CFA could do about it? Could they come on here and solicit pedophiles to their kiddie rape group and I couldn't ban them or even remove their posts?

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I'll ask you the same question:

No limits at all? As in, would someone be able to go into a Chick-Fil-A and start screaming profanity and there's nothing CFA could do about it? Could they come on here and solicit pedophiles to their kiddie rape group and I couldn't ban them or even remove their posts?

No limits as far as the law goes, on speech. Chick-fil-A could then simply ask them to leave and it becomes a trespassing issue.

The instant you place limits on it some dumbass tries to claim it's violence, assault etc.

I wish I could live the 90s over perpetually until I died.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

No limits at all? As in, would someone be able to go into a Chick-Fil-A and start screaming profanity and there's nothing CFA could do about it? Could they come on here and solicit pedophiles to their kiddie rape group and I couldn't ban them or even remove their posts?

To right peaceably assemble is one thing, to trespass, into and upon, and interfere with a private business operations is quite another. A group may assemble on a public right-of-way, a public side walk, fronting a business, but not upon the privately owned property itself.

 

[Ken King]

I'll ask you the same question:

No limits at all? As in, would someone be able to go into a Chick-Fil-A and start screaming profanity and there's nothing CFA could do about it? Could they come on here and solicit pedophiles to their kiddie rape group and I couldn't ban them or even remove their posts?

Yes, none at all. They can say, yell, scream anything they want, whenever they want, and how they want.

Does that mean there would be no consequences, of course not. CFA could call the law for individuals disturbing the peace, and you could ban them and remove their posts. But what you do in response does not limit their ability to say what they want.

 

[vraiblonde]

But what you do in response does not limit their ability to say what they want.

It does limit their right to be heard, just like people being banned on social media for disagreeing with the Marxist rhetoric or presenting a different opinion, which is the topic of the OP. "Should people have free speech on social media?"

If I (or any other website) bans them/removes their posts, and CFA kicks them out, doesn't that curtail their right to speak freely?

How about spammers? Do they have a right to post their scams, and is removing them a violation of their free speech?

You said "absolutely no limits at all", but then you mentioned consequences. Don't consequences limit a person's free speech? As in, "If you say this, we're going to ban you or jail you or punish you in some way"?

 

[Ken King]

It does limit their right to be heard, just like people being banned on social media for disagreeing with the Marxist rhetoric or presenting a different opinion, which is the topic of the OP. "Should people have free speech on social media?" YES

If I (or any other website) bans them/removes their posts, and CFA kicks them out, doesn't that curtail their right to speak freely? NO, they could go to another site or down the street

How about spammers? Do they have a right to post their scams, and is removing them a violation of their free speech? YES for posting, NO for removing them

You said "absolutely no limits at all", but then you mentioned consequences. Don't consequences limit a person's free speech? As in, "If you say this, we're going to ban you or jail you or silence you in some way"?

Yes, absolutely no limits. Consequences don't limit one's ability to make the speech, they are in response to that speech. If the words uttered break the law, civil norms, your standards for acceptable behavior on your site, whatever, then a consequence might be incurred, which is a response and not a limit. Just like speed limits mean that one might be ticketed for speeding but they in no way, shape, or form prevent one from speeding.

 

[vraiblonde]

Just like speed limits mean that one might be ticketed for speeding but they in no way, shape, or form prevent one from speeding.

But tickets are a punishment for speeding. Aren't all negative consequences really punishments? "If you do this, then this bad thing will happen to you."

 

[Ken King]

But tickets are a punishment for speeding. Aren't all negative consequences really punishments? "If you do this, then this bad thing will happen to you."

Well yeah, but do they stop the act?

 

[Bobwhite]

Should We Welcome Holocaust Deniers And Inciters To Violence To Social Media Platforms In The Name Of Free Speech? | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

The whole story is behind a paywall, which I refuse to pay, but I think the whole concept of "free speech" is worth discussing.

It's anyone's right to be a dumbass, and we see it every single day. If we outlaw dumbasses, it would be an amazing world but there would only be me and a handful of others in it. Holocaust denial doesn't hurt anyone, just some feelsies. It's like denying the moon landing took place.

Calling for violence or making violent threats, however, is something else entirely. Unlike mere opinion, it's a call to action - an action that does physically hurt people.

I understand that the progcultists think their feels are real and when someone offends or disagrees with them it's like a murder, but that goes back to it not being against the law to be a dumbass. Their whining and tantrums don't need to be soothed or acted upon in any way- we can just let them have their fits. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, yeah, throw yourself on the floor, Jack. Give us a good show.



So what are your thoughts on "free speech"? Completely free, or should there be some limits?

I would say no limits. One person has the right of free speech while the other person has the right of free withdrawal. Don't limit the right of one person to say what they think and don't limit the right of the other person to remove themselves from a situation that makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Hijinx]

I noticed this morning that Facebook has started a new scam.
If it is something they think will get a response they don't like they set up a separate block so that no one can read it without opening the block.

 

[Tech]

If I may ...


To right peaceably assemble is one thing, to trespass, into and upon, and interfere with a private business operations is quite another. A group may assemble on a public right-of-way, a public side walk, fronting a business, but not upon the privately owned property itself.

I was thinking about this during the SCOTUS protests last week, the town I grew up the homeowner owned up to and including the curb. There was an easement(sidewalk) that I had to maintain for people to traverse the property. If you step off the walk or loiter, you are trespassing. Does this extend to the commercial properties or does it depend on the local government?

 

[Bird Dog]

If you are denied controlling speech on your platform, it's your freedoms being restricted.

 

[HemiHauler]

OMG!

 

[vraiblonde]

Well yeah, but do they stop the act?

On some level, sure. People speed their asses off, but they slow down when they see a cop because they don't want that ticket. It's like drunk drivers - they'll take care when they know there's a DUI checkpoint on their way home from the bar.

And like free speech, 9 times out of 10 that speeder or drunk or texter will make it to their destination with no harm done. But then there's that one time where there's an action that physically injures or kills someone....

Like, on here people can (and do) spew all sorts of nonsense and I just leave it be - let them get a peer review. But if they were seriously talking about killing someone or sex trafficking a child, I'd hide their posts from public view, ban them, and make the cops aware of them. That's where my headline comes into play, and of course because it's my policy I think it's the perfect way to handle things and don't understand why other social media outlets are having such a hard time.

But I am interested in what other people think because it's an interesting topic.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

I was thinking about this during the SCOTUS protests last week, the town I grew up the homeowner owned up to and including the curb. There was an easement(sidewalk) that I had to maintain for people to traverse the property. If you step off the walk or loiter, you are trespassing. Does this extend to the commercial properties or does it depend on the local government?

Commercial properties, are private property, just owned by LLC's, S-Corp, C-Corp, etc.. On highways and roads fronting commercial properties, there are state right-of-ways, and county right-of-ways, running parallel on both sides of the roads, (example, a small road would have a 16 foot right of way from the center of the road, totaling 32 feet in width, with the road itself being, say 25 feet wide), other than that, unless land is government owned, it is private property.

 

[Kyle]

So what are your thoughts on "free speech"? Completely free, or should there be some limits?

No limits at all? As in, would someone be able to go into a Chick-Fil-A and start screaming profanity and there's nothing CFA could do about it? Could they come on here and solicit pedophiles to their kiddie rape group and I couldn't ban them or even remove their posts?

Basically unless it’s illegal, it’s OK.

Like Ken said sometimes “there are consequences” to what you say, but you get to say it.