United States Corrupt Twattery

Raven

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,040
He will lose, then build an election campaign out of it.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
I THOUGHT WE HAD FREE SPEECH!!!!1
Yeah no.

They kicked the elected president of the USA off their platforms for what he said. That's censorship.

Yes, he might have been talking utter utter wank - and he was (and to be clear, he's 100% thundercunt) - but he was irrefutably censored.

You can argue about private companies and standards etc etc. but I still fall on the side of being allowed to say whatever you like, wherever you like - and people being allowed to argue against you in any manner they like.


One almighty bunfight. That's the correct way forward. Not whiny no-platforming shite.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,563
Yeah no.

They kicked the elected president of the USA off their platforms for what he said. That's censorship.

Yes, he might have been talking utter utter wank - and he was (and to be clear, he's 100% thundercunt) - but he was irrefutably censored.

You can argue about private companies and standards etc etc. but I still fall on the side of being allowed to say whatever you like, wherever you like - and people being allowed to argue against you in any manner they like.


One almighty bunfight. That's the correct way forward. Not whiny no-platforming shite.
I will defend your right to be completely wrong about this.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
I will defend your right to be completely wrong about this.
Thanks dude :)

In the meantime I'll await your list of what's acceptable for people to think and hear with baited breath!
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,563
Thanks dude :)

In the meantime I'll await your list of what's acceptable for people to think and hear with baited breath!
When the Daily Mail publishes my penis musings I'll let you know.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
When the Daily Mail publishes my penis musings I'll let you know.
I hope you'd let the whole world know m8.

If you write an article using only your cock for the Mail then that'd signify a massive upturn in quality for them.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,467
Yeah no.

They kicked the elected president of the USA off their platforms for what he said. That's censorship.

Yes, he might have been talking utter utter wank - and he was (and to be clear, he's 100% thundercunt) - but he was irrefutably censored.

You can argue about private companies and standards etc etc. but I still fall on the side of being allowed to say whatever you like, wherever you like - and people being allowed to argue against you in any manner they like.


One almighty bunfight. That's the correct way forward. Not whiny no-platforming shite.
You're wrong. He was thrown off Twitter for basically "shouting fire in a theatre". His comments after Jan 6 were incitement to violence from a man who'd lost the election and who was trying to mobilise a coup. As it happens, the First Amendment is there to protect private citizens from government interfering with their speech, First Amendment protections for members of government (as Trump technically still was) are intentionally reduced. You give up some freedoms when you're in power. "With great power comes great responsibility" etc.

So not only does he have no rights in relation to free speech on a private platform, he almost certainly didn't have the right to say what he did under the First Amendment either because he wasn't speaking as a private citizen.

 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,563
You're wrong. He was thrown off Twitter for basically "shouting fire in a theatre". His comments after Jan 6 were incitement to violence from a man who'd lost the election and who was trying to mobilise a coup. As it happens, the First Amendment is there to protect private citizens from government interfering with their speech, First Amendment protections for members of government (as Trump technically still was) are intentionally reduced. You give up some freedoms when you're in power. "With great power comes great responsibility" etc.

So not only does he have no rights in relation to free speech on a private platform, he almost certainly didn't have the right to say what he did under the First Amendment either because he wasn't speaking as a private citizen.

Plus, he didn't respect the CoC.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
You're wrong. He was thrown off Twitter for basically "shouting fire in a theatre". His comments after Jan 6 were incitement to violence from a man who'd lost the election and who was trying to mobilise a coup. As it happens, the First Amendment is there to protect private citizens from government interfering with their speech, First Amendment protections for members of government (as Trump technically still was) are intentionally reduced. You give up some freedoms when you're in power. "With great power comes great responsibility" etc.

So not only does he have no rights in relation to free speech on a private platform, he almost certainly didn't have the right to say what he did under the First Amendment either because he wasn't speaking as a private citizen.

Two things:

1) he could have been impeached for what he said. I'm not against that or the arguments surrounding it (although I struggle to give much of a shit given the other problems we're facing). And I don't disagree with left-leaning politico's opinion on the first amendment either.

That's the Trump issue (the insignificant bit) dealt with.

2) The private companies (who I acknowledged have the power do what the fuck they like) exercised that power in a way that a lot of people agreed with - but a lot of other people don't.

I said this:
You can argue about private companies and standards etc etc. but I still fall on the side of being allowed to say whatever you like, wherever you like - and people being allowed to argue against you in any manner they like.
And I stand by it - I don't really give a shit about first amendment rights, or Trump or the mechanisms for impeachment.

I do give a shit that private companies have control over what is allowed to be said in the public sphere. And they are the defacto "public" sphere.

The principle is this: Censorship of any form concentrates power in the hands of the censors (or those who set the terms), not "the people".

I'm totally comfortable with putting up with hearing abhorrent and idiotic things if that's the price we pay for being deemed adult enough to hear them.

People who favor censorship always think they're adult enough to hear <shit> without melting down or joining a riot - but the masses (the "other") can't, so they need to be stopped from hearing it. Obvs - that's why there are "reasonable limits" on free speech. But of course - what limits are put in place are down to who's in power and how they feel / what they agree with.

So I come back to this position, which is the only position that can solve that problem and actually meets the definition of free:
One almighty bunfight. That's the correct way forward. Not whiny no-platforming shite.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
**above approach also has the benefit of being the most fun :)
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,467
Two things:

1) he could have been impeached for what he said. I'm not against that or the arguments surrounding it (although I struggle to give much of a shit given the other problems we're facing). And I don't disagree with left-leaning politico's opinion on the first amendment either.

That's the Trump issue (the insignificant bit) dealt with.

2) The private companies (who I acknowledged have the power do what the fuck they like) exercised that power in a way that a lot of people agreed with - but a lot of other people don't.

I said this:

And I stand by it - I don't really give a shit about first amendment rights, or Trump or the mechanisms for impeachment.

I do give a shit that private companies have control over what is allowed to be said in the public sphere. And they are the defacto "public" sphere.

The principle is this: Censorship of any form concentrates power in the hands of the censors (or those who set the terms), not "the people".

I'm totally comfortable with putting up with hearing abhorrent and idiotic things if that's the price we pay for being deemed adult enough to hear them.

People who favor censorship always think they're adult enough to hear <shit> without melting down or joining a riot - but the masses (the "other") can't, so they need to be stopped from hearing it. Obvs - that's why there are "reasonable limits" on free speech. But of course - what limits are put in place are down to who's in power and how they feel / what they agree with.

So I come back to this position, which is the only position that can solve that problem and actually meets the definition of free:
If a private company condoned calls for insurrection through inaction and there been significant deaths/casualties (other than the fuckwits who broke the law storming the Capitol that is), what do you think would have happened then? The social media platforms have a duty of care to their shareholders not to get sued into oblivion. They took the position (rightly) that Trump broke the law; that's what the ban is about, not a free speech issue.
 

Raven

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,040
Even if he was free to express his mad little ramblings, which he wasn't. He would still be able to set up his platform, loads of people would flock to it.

 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
If a private company condoned calls for insurrection through inaction and there been significant deaths/casualties (other than the fuckwits who broke the law storming the Capitol that is), what do you think would have happened then? The social media platforms have a duty of care to their shareholders not to get sued into oblivion. They took the position (rightly) that Trump broke the law; that's what the ban is about, not a free speech issue.
Understand that perfectly. Give zero fucks. (Especially about Trump. zero fucks given for anything to do with him)

You're telling me how it does work (and I know it already - and have conceded the point). I'm interested in how things should work.


Massive, giant, free-for-all uncensored verbal bunfight. Any platform. Anywhere.
 

Raven

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,040

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
17,395
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this novel idea that somebody associated with the Trump administration might not be entirely on the straight and narrow.
 

SilverHood

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,116
The Catholic Church in America are absolute scumbags, covering up their own rapists, pedophiles and worse. They're all going to hell for what they've done.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom