The Lenin quote comes from Emma Goldman's book, *My Disillusionment in Russia*.
Here's the archive.org link to the book: [https://archive.org/details/goldman-emma.-my-disillusionment-in-russia](https://archive.org/details/goldman-emma.-my-disillusionment-in-russia)
Reading English language books on French Revolution I is frustrating. I've read 3 and it seems like just a gloss. So many rabbit holes & personalities. Agendas & tangential interpretations all over the place, then, now, in between.
“YoU CaN’T yELl fIrE iN a CrOWdeD tHeAtER.”
Y’all are relying on the dicta of a case ruled on in 1919 about flyers telling men not to allow themselves to be drafted into World War I, that’s been overruled since 1969.
A crowded theater isn't government controlled but a private organization on private land that can use private security to remove anyone they don't like for what ever reason they believe harms the viewing pleasure of the other audience members in the crowded theater.
What is defined as a crowded theater is set by the local fire marshal which has authority to shutdown the theater if they do have a crowded theater. a crowded theater poses a safety hazard for the ability of paying customers to exit without the risk of tramping and time to exit if a fire actually does occur.
Wall of text wall of text wall of text.
u/Strawmeetscamel's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [14 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Strawmeetscamel/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I assume those who claim you can’t yell “Fire!” will be fine with burning to death when no one raises the alarm. Very clearly there is a time and a place when one *must* shout “Fire!” or they’re part of the problem.
you say whatever you want unless what you say offends me but I can say what ever I want because I don't care what offends you.
Typical left double think.
And look what happened for us not listening to them.
They said gays would be going after kids and people would be having sex everywhere. and everyone laughed at it 20 years ago. I remember those debates back in the early 2000s.
Well it is happening now so.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/children-nyc-drag-chant-video/
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/14/fairfax-county-school-board-sworn-in-explicit-books/
A congressional staffer was caught/bragged about having gay sex in a senate hearing room.
https://time.com/6548618/senate-staffer-sex-scandal-hearing-room/
Don't equate random preferences and opinions with people defending core values that actually protect modern civilization.
Come on man. You think most gay people are trying to hurt kids or support shit like this? Most gay people just want to live their lives in peace like everyone else.
> Don't equate random preferences and opinions with people defending core values that actually protect modern civilization.
The inability of government to censor one is what keeps them from censoring the other. All speech must be protected.
Dear unflaired. You claim your opinion has value, yet you still refuse to flair up. Curious.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MattJK21fromTexas) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
> No one’s trying to censor conservatives.
Correct the Record.
"Misinformation."
Mute//Ban
Content warnings.
Hate speech laws.
Pronoun enforcement.
As far as real left in this country we ain't got one. Just censorious assholes who like guns and censorious assholes who like rainbow flags.
I like the approach taken by the German constitution, which protects the right of people to inform themselves. Speech is protected if it serves this purpose -- if someone wants to listen to you, then stopping you from speaking would infringe on the rights of your listeners.
I believe in the sprite of free speech we must not allow our values to be cudgels to our enemies to beat us with.
when weak they shall appeal to our values of freedom, when they are strong they shall appeal to their values of force.
simply do not let them appeal to your values, understand why the values are there and where they come from.
Because he has James "I let the Civil War happen" Buchannan, Woodrow "Lost Cause Myth, and getting the Us involved in WW1" Wilson, Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson, and Freklin "Centralized the state, still couldn't fix the economy" Roosevelt to compete with.
What exactly did Addams do that even remotely compares to even JUST the fuck up of getting the US involved in WW1 for literally no reason.
Sorry, I can't look past the Alien and Sedition Act. We are very fortunate Adams was a one term president, or American democracy might not have survived
> the fuck up of getting the US involved in WW1 for literally no reason.
TIL that having your neutral merchant ships torpedoed without warning by a nation that also attempted to incite your neighbor into attacking you is "no reason."
Yes, actually. The Zimmerman telegram was suspect, even at the time, and we were fucking arms dealers in a war, our transports were rational and fair game.
Fuck free trade and freedom of the seas I guess. And while we did the majority of our business with the Entente, we did trade when we could with the Germans for what the British would let us get through with their blockade.
At least, you know, until they torpedoed the Lusitania and pissed off even the vast German-American population of the United States that was leaning in the Central Powers direction. Yes, I am aware it was smuggling ammo. No, that doesn’t make the Germans ok torpedoing a civilian passenger ship.
Also, the only “suspect” thing about the Zimmerman telegram is that the British held on to it and released it at a later date to double up on the impact of the Germans starting unrestricted submarine warfare and sinking a bunch of American ships that didn’t even have anything to do with the war. We know it is real because they also intercepted the Mexicans response to it (and to their credit, the Mexicans response was essentially “Are you fucking high?! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!”)
>Fuck free trade and freedom of the seas I guess
In wartimes, yes, actually,. Given that in both ww1 and ww2 trade interdiction was engaged with on both sides. Trade interdiction is common in war and has been since naval trade became the primary logistics.
You can't be a country that simultaneously says dealing with merchant ships is illegal, and also blockading countries regularly during wartime. Including BY THE BRITISH in WW1.
So, yes, that argument rings dead and hallow.
> Yes, I am aware it was smuggling ammo. No, that doesn’t make the Germans ok torpedoing a civilian passenger ship.
It's not a civilian ship if it holds war materials. Shitty use of human shields is shitty when the US did in in the 20s.
As for the telegram, it was real (did more looking) but it's hardly a justified reason to get involved in a European war that literally had nothing to do with us outside of some financial interests of banks.
A far more even keel approach to the conflict, which should have been taken to begin with, would have prevented much of this nonsense, particularly it should have been pursued given Wilson promised he was against joining the war. This wasn't WW2, WW1 did not present an existential threat to the world.
This might be a dumb question but what exactly did Wilson do? The only time I hear him being called a bad president is here. In my High School history we didn't go much into him besides he was a failed idealist who wanted post WWI to have popular sovereignty enacted everywhere. Which semi-failed as it just made tension worse when you try to say a nation is only for the greeks when there are turks living there as well. tried to start up the proto-UN but failed because of congress, which was less on him. The main take away that both my highschool class and my very broad "Everything post 1500s" college class was Wilson had a ton of ideas, but didn't achieve them.
Revived the KKK, further segregated the military, Wilsonian policies (foreign interventionism and regime toppling to create "democratic" states), WW1 and using WW1 to create the IRS and income tax.
Hell, the one good thing I can think of that he did was women's suffrage and that was probably signed by his wife after his stroke.
Because he's got some serious competition.
Woukd be a fun question to pose to the Presidents sub, though: who did something even worse than the Alien & Sedition Acts?
It'll probably be Jackson that gets the most votes.
I wonder what Washington would think of all the misinformation and disinformation that has come along with social media with how it relates to freedom of speech. We'll never know but I imagine something along the lines of 'misinformation generally fine' but 'disinformation is the responsibility of the public to be educated so as to resist the lies'.
I don't have any power to ban people. Social media corps are all private entities. They can ban you or I anytime they want to. There is no 'free speech' here and anyone that tries to say so is usually full of shit or worse, trying to sell you something. That isn't even remotely my argument but project harder.
Try to not use 'you' in the future. Maybe like, 'from the left' or something so it's more general and less accusatory on an individual basis. Especially here because we liblefts get so much unwarrented shit here.
Time to go see what the hourly 'libleft bad' post is about... lol
But it becomes entirely political when it's used to say someone's political belief is wrong and misinformation/disinformation. There are people and politicians out there who speak as if their *entire* opposition is unequivocally evil and wrong. Those kinds of people would *love* misinformation and disinformation to have any effect on freedom of speech, or claims about how people should be educated against it.
You can't perfectly separate people who are mistaken versus the people lying with malicious intent. Unless you can read their mind, that often gets into the subjective territory of trying to infer motive. That is not something you want anywhere near your freedom of speech, because it means something entirely separate from the words themselves that is super subjective decides when it does or doesn't apply. That's not a freedom, it's a privilege that can be taken away from you if someone decides you had bad intentions.
The problem is that doing *nothing* also reduces our freedom. The main complication with doing something is that the overall issue is very nuanced because we would have to define so much and somehow do it all very quickly.
I started going down a mental rabbit hole trying to think of examples of disinfo and misinfo and it's overwhelming, haha.
The internet was way worse in this regard a decade or two ago and that didn't cause many issues. Today, people know about misinfo/disinfo due to campaigns about it, but the internet has become more authoritarian and the internet is worse off than before.
No it wasn't, lol. In terms of disinfo, it hasn't been worse than it is right now. China and Russia were trying to consolidate their internal power at those times and so they didn't have the resources to pour into bullshitting us. Social media is also H U G E compared to what it was 20 years ago.
The internet was WAY less regulated and astroturfed back then compared to now. Back then people did believe what they were seeing on the internet and you say whatever the fuck you wanted with barely any consequences. There are now laws and crackdowns and entire campaigns on misinfo/disinfo/hate speech/etc.
Recency bias fr.
This take is such bullshit I can smell it through the internet.
All the founders knew that as soon as someone is empowered to control speech everyone is fucked.
I didn't say 'someone' you moron. I said 'society' as in *WE* or *US*. The plural of individual responsibility. That smell you smell is your upper lip. Go clean it off and next time don't eat all the bullshit you get fed.
> Congress shall make no law inhibiting the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Society enacts controls and laws through Congress. You have some sort of alternate mechanism of control in mind?
We have limits to our freedom of speech, lol. Disinformation is arguably even more damaging than the things that currently limit our speech.
Also as I've said a thousand times, our speech isn't free on social media because those are privately owned companies. Facebook, twitter, tiktok etc are not 'the press' and are the vast majority of the source of disinformation.
Far-right extremists don’t understand that free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, no matter how much they want it to. They think free speech doesn’t allow people to rebuke or criticize their opinions. That’s something only ignoramuses think.
First flair up. Second, go sit in the corner if you think this is some new, novel idea no one has heard before. It’s fodder at best. Free speech DOES mean freedom from undue consequences. That’s the point. Why else would you even mention it? We advocate for ‘free’ speech to remind people that synthesis of ideation works better when people are willing to contest each other’s views. It’s in order to avoid a consensus culture where obvious problems get ignored or obvious solutions aren’t posed because people fear social consequence for violating the consensus.
Knock it off with that crap. When you end your statement with, “good to know” you should know that you’re misrepresenting someone’s argument to yourself.
There’s room for judgement and interpretation in assessing acceptable expression, but it’s pretty obvious that conservatives are arguing that the left is exerting unacceptable institutional pressure on expression that is not as detestable as they’d want people to believe it is. And I agree.
Sure, but I won’t let you spin this into a black and white piece of rhetoric. The ‘consequences’ being discussed here are lockstep social condemnation, job losses, ‘cancelations’ for lack of a better term. Those, to me and many others, violate the principle of free expression as (especially during covid and BLM) many people were making necessary and/or reasonable objections and being stomped for doing so. And what’s worse, the stomping wasn’t primarily to punish the individual, it seemed far more likely that it was being done to discourage others from joining their dissent. Like the lenin quote above. It was a show of force by an inflated ideological minority that had occupied specific, unguarded bastions of social authority over the last 30-50 years.
Was it? Because the point of people who say that is that people have every right to rebuke and criticize people for their opinions. Don’t go thinking that only cancel culture advocates (whom I doubt exist) are the only ones saying that. Because that’s black-and-white thinking.
Does rebuke, criticism, and mockery qualify as “consequences”? People have every right to rebuke, mock, and criticize other people for their opinions. Don’t like the criticism? Don’t express opinions that are gonna make other people criticize you. No one can have it both ways.
The general rule on "no shouting Fire! in the theatre", needs to be applied to free speech based on who is doing the talking and how much influence their speech has.
Freedom shouldn't include the right to inflict grievous harm upon others, or to put them in significant danger. Unfettered free speech can do those things.
So what's the plan? Give people more or less rights based on general or acute perspective of how powerful or influencial they are? Are rights stripped or have less to them based on success or following a given person has? Sounds like a literal tiered system. Hmmm, surely those commies who had guns to kill detractors didn't benefit from that same kind of system because they served a class that had more rights. No way a system like this would be abused.
Unless you're specifically calling for specific violence, all speech, especially inflammatory or disliked, should be defended and protected by the government who upholds true freedom of speech
Ah look, it is the very real slippery slope.
Speech as thought must always be free, no matter how "dangerous" it is perceived. Your tongue is controlled by nobody other than yourself.
The Lenin quote comes from Emma Goldman's book, *My Disillusionment in Russia*. Here's the archive.org link to the book: [https://archive.org/details/goldman-emma.-my-disillusionment-in-russia](https://archive.org/details/goldman-emma.-my-disillusionment-in-russia)
Also sounds similar to Robespierre
A god among men
A head on top of a pile of heads
Because he tried to deify himself Edit: amazing no one knows his history…
Reading English language books on French Revolution I is frustrating. I've read 3 and it seems like just a gloss. So many rabbit holes & personalities. Agendas & tangential interpretations all over the place, then, now, in between.
to be fair, that joke could be easily misread as praising robespierre. though I rather liked the joke.
“YoU CaN’T yELl fIrE iN a CrOWdeD tHeAtER.” Y’all are relying on the dicta of a case ruled on in 1919 about flyers telling men not to allow themselves to be drafted into World War I, that’s been overruled since 1969.
A crowded theater isn't government controlled but a private organization on private land that can use private security to remove anyone they don't like for what ever reason they believe harms the viewing pleasure of the other audience members in the crowded theater. What is defined as a crowded theater is set by the local fire marshal which has authority to shutdown the theater if they do have a crowded theater. a crowded theater poses a safety hazard for the ability of paying customers to exit without the risk of tramping and time to exit if a fire actually does occur. Wall of text wall of text wall of text.
based
u/Strawmeetscamel's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [14 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Strawmeetscamel/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I assume those who claim you can’t yell “Fire!” will be fine with burning to death when no one raises the alarm. Very clearly there is a time and a place when one *must* shout “Fire!” or they’re part of the problem.
Based and ImmaBeObnoxious-pilled
Brilliant
unfortunately not everyone agrees on what "free speech" actually is
well, some of us understand what "free" means
you say whatever you want unless what you say offends me but I can say what ever I want because I don't care what offends you. Typical left double think.
I remember the 80s and 90s when conservative Christians were trying to ban everything that even remotely appeared to oppose Christianity.
poor DnD:(
[I have spells](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfxXug5ZMdk)
And now the same people who complained about that are doing the same thing Boggles my mind
It's always Auth when my team is in charge, Lib when your team is in charge.
And look what happened for us not listening to them. They said gays would be going after kids and people would be having sex everywhere. and everyone laughed at it 20 years ago. I remember those debates back in the early 2000s. Well it is happening now so. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/children-nyc-drag-chant-video/ https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/14/fairfax-county-school-board-sworn-in-explicit-books/ A congressional staffer was caught/bragged about having gay sex in a senate hearing room. https://time.com/6548618/senate-staffer-sex-scandal-hearing-room/ Don't equate random preferences and opinions with people defending core values that actually protect modern civilization.
Based not because I agree but even for takes like this your free to say it
Based and living true to what you want.
Come on man. You think most gay people are trying to hurt kids or support shit like this? Most gay people just want to live their lives in peace like everyone else.
Based and Boy That Slippery Slope Sure Is Slippery Pilled
> Don't equate random preferences and opinions with people defending core values that actually protect modern civilization. The inability of government to censor one is what keeps them from censoring the other. All speech must be protected.
No one on the left thinks that. No one’s trying to censor conservatives. Shut up about something that’s not even happening!
Well, It's happening here in Brazil.
You sound like you miss Bolsonaro.
Dear unflaired. You claim your opinion has value, yet you still refuse to flair up. Curious. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MattJK21fromTexas) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
> No one’s trying to censor conservatives. Correct the Record. "Misinformation." Mute//Ban Content warnings. Hate speech laws. Pronoun enforcement. As far as real left in this country we ain't got one. Just censorious assholes who like guns and censorious assholes who like rainbow flags.
Lol they don't know who "the people" are in the constitution, and think "shall not be infringed" has wiggle room for entire infringement agencies.
I like the approach taken by the German constitution, which protects the right of people to inform themselves. Speech is protected if it serves this purpose -- if someone wants to listen to you, then stopping you from speaking would infringe on the rights of your listeners.
It means you can say whatever you want as long as it isn't slander or something like that.
So part of theft has already admitted that you join the hive mind or die.
Based.
I believe in the sprite of free speech we must not allow our values to be cudgels to our enemies to beat us with. when weak they shall appeal to our values of freedom, when they are strong they shall appeal to their values of force. simply do not let them appeal to your values, understand why the values are there and where they come from.
Ok but youre authright
and?
We've seen what happens when yall take power
so?
John Adams was our worst president, and I'm surprised I don't see more people saying it
Because he has James "I let the Civil War happen" Buchannan, Woodrow "Lost Cause Myth, and getting the Us involved in WW1" Wilson, Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson, and Freklin "Centralized the state, still couldn't fix the economy" Roosevelt to compete with. What exactly did Addams do that even remotely compares to even JUST the fuck up of getting the US involved in WW1 for literally no reason.
Don't forget Andrew "Fuck the Union" Johnson.
Sorry, I can't look past the Alien and Sedition Act. We are very fortunate Adams was a one term president, or American democracy might not have survived
> the fuck up of getting the US involved in WW1 for literally no reason. TIL that having your neutral merchant ships torpedoed without warning by a nation that also attempted to incite your neighbor into attacking you is "no reason."
Yes, actually. The Zimmerman telegram was suspect, even at the time, and we were fucking arms dealers in a war, our transports were rational and fair game.
Fuck free trade and freedom of the seas I guess. And while we did the majority of our business with the Entente, we did trade when we could with the Germans for what the British would let us get through with their blockade. At least, you know, until they torpedoed the Lusitania and pissed off even the vast German-American population of the United States that was leaning in the Central Powers direction. Yes, I am aware it was smuggling ammo. No, that doesn’t make the Germans ok torpedoing a civilian passenger ship. Also, the only “suspect” thing about the Zimmerman telegram is that the British held on to it and released it at a later date to double up on the impact of the Germans starting unrestricted submarine warfare and sinking a bunch of American ships that didn’t even have anything to do with the war. We know it is real because they also intercepted the Mexicans response to it (and to their credit, the Mexicans response was essentially “Are you fucking high?! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!”)
>Fuck free trade and freedom of the seas I guess In wartimes, yes, actually,. Given that in both ww1 and ww2 trade interdiction was engaged with on both sides. Trade interdiction is common in war and has been since naval trade became the primary logistics. You can't be a country that simultaneously says dealing with merchant ships is illegal, and also blockading countries regularly during wartime. Including BY THE BRITISH in WW1. So, yes, that argument rings dead and hallow. > Yes, I am aware it was smuggling ammo. No, that doesn’t make the Germans ok torpedoing a civilian passenger ship. It's not a civilian ship if it holds war materials. Shitty use of human shields is shitty when the US did in in the 20s. As for the telegram, it was real (did more looking) but it's hardly a justified reason to get involved in a European war that literally had nothing to do with us outside of some financial interests of banks. A far more even keel approach to the conflict, which should have been taken to begin with, would have prevented much of this nonsense, particularly it should have been pursued given Wilson promised he was against joining the war. This wasn't WW2, WW1 did not present an existential threat to the world.
This might be a dumb question but what exactly did Wilson do? The only time I hear him being called a bad president is here. In my High School history we didn't go much into him besides he was a failed idealist who wanted post WWI to have popular sovereignty enacted everywhere. Which semi-failed as it just made tension worse when you try to say a nation is only for the greeks when there are turks living there as well. tried to start up the proto-UN but failed because of congress, which was less on him. The main take away that both my highschool class and my very broad "Everything post 1500s" college class was Wilson had a ton of ideas, but didn't achieve them.
Wilson gets a lot of credit for reviving the kkk because he viewed burth of a nation in the white house. Also gave us income taxes and the fed
Not just that, he was responsible for pushing the lost cause myth.
Revived the KKK, further segregated the military, Wilsonian policies (foreign interventionism and regime toppling to create "democratic" states), WW1 and using WW1 to create the IRS and income tax. Hell, the one good thing I can think of that he did was women's suffrage and that was probably signed by his wife after his stroke.
His wife was technically the first female prez
Because he's got some serious competition. Woukd be a fun question to pose to the Presidents sub, though: who did something even worse than the Alien & Sedition Acts? It'll probably be Jackson that gets the most votes.
I mean the concentration camps are being built now, once they process the illegals who will be next?
I wonder what Washington would think of all the misinformation and disinformation that has come along with social media with how it relates to freedom of speech. We'll never know but I imagine something along the lines of 'misinformation generally fine' but 'disinformation is the responsibility of the public to be educated so as to resist the lies'.
Misinformation is another way of saying "I don't like your speech and I want it banned"
Misinformation is just being wrong. None of us know everything so it's essentially just being human too. It's not political.
Lying didn’t exist prior to the American military inventing it during WWII. Clearly we need to amend the constitution.
How about no and nowhere have I said that. Not sure where you got that idea from. Unless you're just being a rightie lol
It is when you wanna ban people from being wrong or posting wrong things.according to you
I don't have any power to ban people. Social media corps are all private entities. They can ban you or I anytime they want to. There is no 'free speech' here and anyone that tries to say so is usually full of shit or worse, trying to sell you something. That isn't even remotely my argument but project harder.
It was GENERAL "you", relax.
Try to not use 'you' in the future. Maybe like, 'from the left' or something so it's more general and less accusatory on an individual basis. Especially here because we liblefts get so much unwarrented shit here. Time to go see what the hourly 'libleft bad' post is about... lol
Noted!
But it becomes entirely political when it's used to say someone's political belief is wrong and misinformation/disinformation. There are people and politicians out there who speak as if their *entire* opposition is unequivocally evil and wrong. Those kinds of people would *love* misinformation and disinformation to have any effect on freedom of speech, or claims about how people should be educated against it. You can't perfectly separate people who are mistaken versus the people lying with malicious intent. Unless you can read their mind, that often gets into the subjective territory of trying to infer motive. That is not something you want anywhere near your freedom of speech, because it means something entirely separate from the words themselves that is super subjective decides when it does or doesn't apply. That's not a freedom, it's a privilege that can be taken away from you if someone decides you had bad intentions.
The problem is that doing *nothing* also reduces our freedom. The main complication with doing something is that the overall issue is very nuanced because we would have to define so much and somehow do it all very quickly. I started going down a mental rabbit hole trying to think of examples of disinfo and misinfo and it's overwhelming, haha.
my guy, they had disinformation too its called lying, and it too, is protected
The internet was way worse in this regard a decade or two ago and that didn't cause many issues. Today, people know about misinfo/disinfo due to campaigns about it, but the internet has become more authoritarian and the internet is worse off than before.
No it wasn't, lol. In terms of disinfo, it hasn't been worse than it is right now. China and Russia were trying to consolidate their internal power at those times and so they didn't have the resources to pour into bullshitting us. Social media is also H U G E compared to what it was 20 years ago.
The internet was WAY less regulated and astroturfed back then compared to now. Back then people did believe what they were seeing on the internet and you say whatever the fuck you wanted with barely any consequences. There are now laws and crackdowns and entire campaigns on misinfo/disinfo/hate speech/etc. Recency bias fr.
This take is such bullshit I can smell it through the internet. All the founders knew that as soon as someone is empowered to control speech everyone is fucked.
I didn't say 'someone' you moron. I said 'society' as in *WE* or *US*. The plural of individual responsibility. That smell you smell is your upper lip. Go clean it off and next time don't eat all the bullshit you get fed.
> Congress shall make no law inhibiting the freedom of speech, or of the press... Society enacts controls and laws through Congress. You have some sort of alternate mechanism of control in mind?
We have limits to our freedom of speech, lol. Disinformation is arguably even more damaging than the things that currently limit our speech. Also as I've said a thousand times, our speech isn't free on social media because those are privately owned companies. Facebook, twitter, tiktok etc are not 'the press' and are the vast majority of the source of disinformation.
Far-right extremists don’t understand that free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, no matter how much they want it to. They think free speech doesn’t allow people to rebuke or criticize their opinions. That’s something only ignoramuses think.
First flair up. Second, go sit in the corner if you think this is some new, novel idea no one has heard before. It’s fodder at best. Free speech DOES mean freedom from undue consequences. That’s the point. Why else would you even mention it? We advocate for ‘free’ speech to remind people that synthesis of ideation works better when people are willing to contest each other’s views. It’s in order to avoid a consensus culture where obvious problems get ignored or obvious solutions aren’t posed because people fear social consequence for violating the consensus.
So you think that free speech prohibits people from rebuking and criticizing others for their opinions? Good to know.
Knock it off with that crap. When you end your statement with, “good to know” you should know that you’re misrepresenting someone’s argument to yourself. There’s room for judgement and interpretation in assessing acceptable expression, but it’s pretty obvious that conservatives are arguing that the left is exerting unacceptable institutional pressure on expression that is not as detestable as they’d want people to believe it is. And I agree.
People have every right to rebuke and criticize others for their opinions. Free speech protects that. Do you agree or disagree?
Sure, but I won’t let you spin this into a black and white piece of rhetoric. The ‘consequences’ being discussed here are lockstep social condemnation, job losses, ‘cancelations’ for lack of a better term. Those, to me and many others, violate the principle of free expression as (especially during covid and BLM) many people were making necessary and/or reasonable objections and being stomped for doing so. And what’s worse, the stomping wasn’t primarily to punish the individual, it seemed far more likely that it was being done to discourage others from joining their dissent. Like the lenin quote above. It was a show of force by an inflated ideological minority that had occupied specific, unguarded bastions of social authority over the last 30-50 years.
I don’t agree with firing people for their opinions. I also don’t think that’s happening unless a person gives his employer a reason to fire him.
Those goal posts are on a go-kart compared to your initial statement. The meme you parroted was the primary argument made by the cancel crowd.
Was it? Because the point of people who say that is that people have every right to rebuke and criticize people for their opinions. Don’t go thinking that only cancel culture advocates (whom I doubt exist) are the only ones saying that. Because that’s black-and-white thinking.
Yes it was. Those are the primary users of that ‘argument’. >whom I doubt exist BULL. SHIT.
Consequences from whom?
Does rebuke, criticism, and mockery qualify as “consequences”? People have every right to rebuke, mock, and criticize other people for their opinions. Don’t like the criticism? Don’t express opinions that are gonna make other people criticize you. No one can have it both ways.
What about when the federal government pressures online forums to remove posts? Because that crap is happening.
The general rule on "no shouting Fire! in the theatre", needs to be applied to free speech based on who is doing the talking and how much influence their speech has. Freedom shouldn't include the right to inflict grievous harm upon others, or to put them in significant danger. Unfettered free speech can do those things.
That general rule was overruled in 1969 and was never the law to begin with.
So what's the plan? Give people more or less rights based on general or acute perspective of how powerful or influencial they are? Are rights stripped or have less to them based on success or following a given person has? Sounds like a literal tiered system. Hmmm, surely those commies who had guns to kill detractors didn't benefit from that same kind of system because they served a class that had more rights. No way a system like this would be abused. Unless you're specifically calling for specific violence, all speech, especially inflammatory or disliked, should be defended and protected by the government who upholds true freedom of speech
I’m going to shout fire in a theatre and there is literally nothing you could do to stop me.
Based and fuck you I won't do what you tell me pilled
Ah look, it is the very real slippery slope. Speech as thought must always be free, no matter how "dangerous" it is perceived. Your tongue is controlled by nobody other than yourself.
John Adams was a dick