Politics US Election 2020

[DaGaffer]

I don't want to defend lying. I've gone a long way to demonstrate that my objections to a lot of these freedom of speech issues are not specifically to do with Trump.

On him though - I think the Dem's impeachment proceedings are just a red rag to a bull (the mob) that also keeps him relevant. It's another own-goal IMO.


They should now just ignore Trump and start talking about what they're going to do to make a better world, a stronger democracy, a fairer economy. They should be presenting their legislative programme for their first year and show just how they're going to fix the massive structural problems to make life better for Americans, to make the country one that the world looks up to again.

But on the face of it they just want to kick Trump and pour oil on the fires of his supporters.

So you think his actions should be consequence-free just to keep the mob quiet? So when the next despotic arsehole comes along he can do what he likes in the knowledge that no-one's going to take him to task?

Four years of abusing his Office, actually showing outright contempt for the norms of Presidential behaviour, and the answer is "don't rock the boat"? Really?

 

[Scouse]

So you think his actions should be consequence-free just to keep the mob quiet?

Have you seen what's happening to Trump's businesses around the world? He's fucked! (And no golf!)

Four years of abusing his Office, actually showing outright contempt for the norms of Presidential behaviour, and the answer is "don't rock the boat"? Really?

Nah. I'm saying right now maybe leaving a sad fat old orange man to sink into irrelevance could be more important if it means neutering follow-on violence. I know you said "just" keep the mob quiet - but right now America's on a knife edge IMO. The rug can be pulled from under the dissenters - whereas if they do decide to take up arms then more people could well die.

I don't think "an example" is going to be set to other despots who might try this - if they're going to take that gamble they're going to take that gamble anyway. What's needed is the structural reasons that enables these wankers to get voted in in the first place are fixed - and I think the Dems should be focussing on that.

Yes, it'd stick in the craw. But you run after Trump (rather than showing he's now irrelevant) you not only give up striking whilst the iron is hot on fixing things, you also rocket-fuel his supporters and entrench their opinions even more (whilst things still being about him). Whereas "he lost the election, we've moved on" is a pretty big message to send.

On balance.

 

[Job]

Jesis I can barely post this, but hete we are.
Even Merkel is concerned about twitters Trump ban.
And that would be because the EU is well aware of the undemocratic power of big tech.

Merkel calls Trump Twitter ban 'problematic' – DW – 01/11/2021

The German chancellor said although Twitter was right to add warnings to Trump's posts, the move to permanently suspend his account raises concerns about free speech.

www.google.com

While the short sighted cretins are all cheering the bad guy getting banned from the stage, they are cheering our steady fall into a chinese style dystopian future.

Everyone one of these extra judicial 'punishments' that the mob is calling for are major backward steps in civilisation that will come to bite us all in the ass.

Ravens talks of me being the sheep, in reality his posts could quite easily be the brain chip implanted robotic propaganda of big tech.
Who would have thought someone opposing corporate group think was a sheep, but thats what were up against...they are brainwashing you.
Your entire opinion is led by their algorithms, your news is filtered to back it up and thirdly you are taught that any other opinions are dangerous.

Governments are going after big tech...not because they disagree with their methods, but because they are trying to cut in on their action.

 

[Yoni]

View: https://youtu.be/Bds-DQlZvVs

 

[dysfunction]

Jesis I can barely post this, but hete we are.
Even Merkel is concerned about twitters Trump ban.
And that would be because the EU is well aware of the undemocratic power of big tech.

Merkel calls Trump Twitter ban 'problematic' – DW – 01/11/2021

The German chancellor said although Twitter was right to add warnings to Trump's posts, the move to permanently suspend his account raises concerns about free speech.

www.google.com

While the short sighted cretins are all cheering the bad guy getting banned from the stage, they are cheering our steady fall into a chinese style dystopian future.

Everyone one of these extra judicial 'punishments' that the mob is calling for are major backward steps in civilisation that will come to bite us all in the ass.

Ravens talks of me being the sheep, in reality his posts could quite easily be the brain chip implanted robotic propaganda of big tech.
Who would have thought someone opposing corporate group think was a sheep, but thats what were up against...they are brainwashing you.
Your entire opinion is led by their algorithms, your news is filtered to back it up and thirdly you are taught that any other opinions are dangerous.

Governments are going after big tech...not because they disagree with their methods, but because they are trying to cut in on their action.

Was Trump going after the big Tech companies?
No. No he wasn't. He was using and abusing them as much as he could to brainwash his followers with lies and misinformation.

 

[Aoami]

Jesis I can barely post this, but hete we are.
Even Merkel is concerned about twitters Trump ban.
And that would be because the EU is well aware of the undemocratic power of big tech.

Merkel calls Trump Twitter ban 'problematic' – DW – 01/11/2021

The German chancellor said although Twitter was right to add warnings to Trump's posts, the move to permanently suspend his account raises concerns about free speech.

www.google.com

While the short sighted cretins are all cheering the bad guy getting banned from the stage, they are cheering our steady fall into a chinese style dystopian future.

Everyone one of these extra judicial 'punishments' that the mob is calling for are major backward steps in civilisation that will come to bite us all in the ass.

Ravens talks of me being the sheep, in reality his posts could quite easily be the brain chip implanted robotic propaganda of big tech.
Who would have thought someone opposing corporate group think was a sheep, but thats what were up against...they are brainwashing you.
Your entire opinion is led by their algorithms, your news is filtered to back it up and thirdly you are taught that any other opinions are dangerous.

Governments are going after big tech...not because they disagree with their methods, but because they are trying to cut in on their action.

Question I would ask here is why the power of big tech undemocratic? People chose to use these services - they don't have to. I'm referring purely to social media here, nothing else.

 

[Gwadien]

The actual fuck

Florida manatee with 'Trump' etched on back prompts investigation

An investigation is launched after the marine mammal was found with the president's name on its body.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Gwadien]

Question I would ask here is why the power of big tech undemocratic? People chose to use these services - they don't have to. I'm referring purely to social media here, nothing else.

Because Amazon stopped Parler from working because they dont want to be associated with an attempted coup on the democratically elected Government, shame on them.

 

[DaGaffer]

Question I would ask here is why the power of big tech undemocratic? People chose to use these services - they don't have to. I'm referring purely to social media here, nothing else.

Ah no. The big techs are all problematic, albeit in different ways. First of all, the "don't use them" is specious; if you use the internet at all Google and Facebook are harvesting information about you every time you agree to the use of cookies on any website (even if you're using ad blockers). Sure, you don't have to do that, but large parts of the web will simply stop working for you, living you economically and socially disadvantaged.

Second they have monopolistic power and are heavily vertically integrated; so they have the power to control the message, both overtly and covertly, and more scarily, by accident (a large part of the problems with Facebook wasn't because of any overt malicious intent by Facebook, but they let themselves be manipulated, and if one social platform has most of the people in a given country on it, that's a threat to democracy, qv. Cambridge Analytica). Monopolies are not only a threat from the monopolies themselves, but from their ability to be subverted because all our eggs are in one basket.

These are just the political problems. The chilling economic effects are just as bad, and they can spill over into the political (like the way Amazon and Google are essentially bribed to build warehouses and data centres).

We've actually handed over incredible amounts of power to a tiny handful of companies with a shockingly low level of oversight.

 

[Yoni]

How a Presidential Rally Turned Into a Capitol Rampage

 

[Aoami]

Ah no. The big techs are all problematic, albeit in different ways. First of all, the "don't use them" is specious; if you use the internet at all Google and Facebook are harvesting information about you every time you agree to the use of cookies on any website (even if you're using ad blockers). Sure, you don't have to do that, but large parts of the web will simply stop working for you, living you economically and socially disadvantaged.

Second they have monopolistic power and are heavily vertically integrated; so they have the power to control the message, both overtly and covertly, and more scarily, by accident (a large part of the problems with Facebook wasn't because of any overt malicious intent by Facebook, but they let themselves be manipulated, and if one social platform has most of the people in a given country on it, that's a threat to democracy, qv. Cambridge Analytica). Monopolies are not only a threat from the monopolies themselves, but from their ability to be subverted because all our eggs are in one basket.

These are just the political problems. The chilling economic effects are just as bad, and they can spill over into the political (like the way Amazon and Google are essentially bribed to build warehouses and data centres).

We've actually handed over incredible amounts of power to a tiny handful of companies with a shockingly low level of oversight.

I did specifically say that I was only talking about Social Media.

 

[DaGaffer]

I did specifically say that I was only talking about Social Media.

Which still applies. You're Facebook's product even when you're not on Facebook.

 

[Scouse]

Question I would ask here is why the power of big tech undemocratic? People chose to use these services - they don't have to. I'm referring purely to social media here, nothing else.

I've already posted about this at length.

They are the new public court. The numbers alone mean that they're now the de-facto forum for public debate. There's not a media organisation, business (large or small - corporation or coffee shop) that isn't on there - and they're there because that is where the public is.

When they were small, no big deal. But they are now the public sphere. To cut yourself off from that voluntarily is to neuter your business and to cut yourself off from public debate.

If you're a public figure you pretty much HAVE to be there.

Notable exceptions, ofc. But the internet has changed the face of communications. Newspapers have died as the primary communication medium. Deeb's idea that either Labour or the Tories would be happy to use gov.uk as a platform for anything other than official government information, rather than campaigning (which is all on facebook and twitter, again - because that's where the public is) is ridiculous.

That's why we've been having a debate about how do you regulate big tech. IMO it's easy - 1st Amendment rights need to apply. They're a platform for public discourse - and in America that public discourse is protected from criminalisation. And good things have been achieved through social media - the organisation of the violent Arab Spring comes to mind.

But that's "good violence", no?

Job's right. As is Merkel. Simplistically as possible - if you don't protect speech, then you have China.

 

[Deebs]

Hehe


View: https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1348993136471592963

 

[Scouse]

Hehe


View: https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1348993136471592963

Her own argument is self defeating:



First amendement rights in America protect the right to advocate for violent protest.

Just like the violent protest that overthrew Apartheid in South Africa and the Arab Spring - which apparently was heavily organised on social media.

If you ban that, then you ban the good with the bad. That's why they protected freedom of speech in America. - Sometimes violence is the right course of action.

But if you allow corporations or governments to decide what's acceptable, then you've lost that freedom to make your own choice.

This is much, much bigger than Donald Fucking tRump.

 

[Deebs]

Her own argument is self defeating:

View attachment 43578

First amendement rights in America protect the right to advocate for violent protest.

Just like the violent protest that overthrew Apartheid in South Africa and the Arab Spring - which apparently was heavily organised on social media.

If you ban that, then you ban the good with the bad. That's why they protected freedom of speech in America. - Sometimes violence is the right course of action.

But if you allow corporations or governments to decide what's acceptable, then you've lost that freedom to make your own choice.

This is much, much bigger than Donald Fucking tRump.

You didn't read my link to 1st amendment rights and the exceptions.

Here is another link

Factbox: When can free speech be restricted in the United States?

The white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that turned violent on Saturday, leaving one counter-protester dead and dozens injured, has raised questions about how authorities should balance the right to free speech and public safety.

www.reuters.com

Can speech be regulated if it encourages violence?

In the Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court said speech loses First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to “imminent lawless action.”

In case you don't want to read it.

And another

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

Do we have an unfettered right to protest on government property?

No. The government can limit such protests depending on several factors. First, violent protests are outlawed anywhere. The text of the First Amendment provides for “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The key word is “peaceably” — violent protesting is not allowed.

So again, freedom of speech in America is NOT fully protected.

 

[Wij]

I've already posted about this at length.

They are the new public court. The numbers alone mean that they're now the de-facto forum for public debate. There's not a media organisation, business (large or small - corporation or coffee shop) that isn't on there - and they're there because that is where the public is.

When they were small, no big deal. But they are now the public sphere. To cut yourself off from that voluntarily is to neuter your business and to cut yourself off from public debate.

If you're a public figure you pretty much HAVE to be there.

Notable exceptions, ofc. But the internet has changed the face of communications. Newspapers have died as the primary communication medium. Deeb's idea that either Labour or the Tories would be happy to use gov.uk as a platform for anything other than official government information, rather than campaigning (which is all on facebook and twitter, again - because that's where the public is) is ridiculous.

That's why we've been having a debate about how do you regulate big tech. IMO it's easy - 1st Amendment rights need to apply. They're a platform for public discourse - and in America that public discourse is protected from criminalisation. And good things have been achieved through social media - the organisation of the violent Arab Spring comes to mind.

But that's "good violence", no?

Job's right. As is Merkel. Simplistically as possible - if you don't protect speech, then you have China.

I think you are getting what Merkel said wrong.

In Germany many things are banned from being said. Not by private companies though. By the law / government. That's her beef.

 

[Raven]

She is using it as a stick to beat the tech companies with is all. The tech companies aren't banning free speech, they are removing it from their private networks. The nutters can still spout their bullshit all they like.

 

[Deebs]

I think I fucked up and renamed @Job to @Scouse in the control panel of the FH forums.

 

[Scouse]

Stuff

I never said it wasn't amended (I think in the 1970's - not bad for laws written in the 1700's) but advocating for violent protest is still protected @Deebs.

What has been limited is the rallying cry of "come with me and lets go hang some niggers right now" - the imminent thing. But you can still advocate for the mass extermination of black people, or republicans, or democrats - should you be a massive enough douche to want to do so.

You can advocate for the worst stuff imaginable, protected by law, like, for example, gay marriage. You can advocate for gay people to get married and to fuck in the streets if you so desire - and they cannot criminalise you for it.

The protection afforded the giant wankers (the KKK) is the same protection that allows gay rights movements to advocate for whatever they like.

You know, unlike in blighty when we (relatively recently) chemically castrated the war hero Alan Turing, directly contributing to his eventual suicide, because he was gay (and had to hide it - and certainly couldn't openly advocate for it without fear of massive repercussions).


But that's OK. We apologised to and pardoned the long dead Turing in 2009.

The fact that it's taken a couple of hundred years of concerted effort to slightly alter the US Constitution's original protections is pretty fan-tastic IMO.

 

[Scouse]

I think you are getting what Merkel said wrong.

In Germany many things are banned from being said. Not by private companies though. By the law / government. That's her beef.

Didn't read it. I know which side her bread is buttered - and it ain't on the side of free speech. But she shares my worry about private corporations being the unaccountable censors of what is acceptable - rather than democratically elected governments.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's bonkers that anyone would allow themselves to be infantilised by governments because of the existence of asshats - but that's way more preferable than Bezos or Zuckerberg having the keys to what my brain is allowed to be exposed to or come up with.

 

[Deebs]

I never said it wasn't amended (I think in the 1970's - not bad for laws written in the 1700's) but advocating for violent protest is still protected @Deebs.

What has been limited is the rallying cry of "come with me and lets go hang some niggers right now" - the imminent thing. But you can still advocate for the mass extermination of black people, or republicans, or democrats - should you be a massive enough douche to want to do so.

You can advocate for the worst stuff imaginable, protected by law, like, for example, gay marriage. You can advocate for gay people to get married and to fuck in the streets if you so desire - and they cannot criminalise you for it.

The protection afforded the giant wankers (the KKK) is the same protection that allows gay rights movements to advocate for whatever they like.

You know, unlike in blighty when we (relatively recently) chemically castrated the war hero Alan Turing, directly contributing to his eventual suicide, because he was gay (and had to hide it - and certainly couldn't openly advocate for it without fear of massive repercussions).


But that's OK. We apologised to and pardoned the long dead Turing in 2009.

The fact that it's taken a couple of hundred years of concerted effort to slightly alter the US Constitution's original protections is pretty fan-tastic IMO.

Seriously ? Have you not read anything I have posted and the sources?

1st amendment does not protect you for calling for violence.

Show me some validation of where the 1st amendment allows for the calling of violence.

 

[Raven]

But the tech companies also don't want the headache of illegal stuff being on their networks. In the same way they would stamp out weapons sales, people trafficking or any other illegal activity, such as inciting and planning violence.

As far as I know, I didn't really care at the time and I don't really care now, the planners of the spring uprising did not spend months in advance planning actual murders, it was a protest against a violent state that grew into what it became.

Whether these nutters would actually carry any of the threats is another matter but when people actually die, like at the Whitehouse then one has to assume that there is a real risk to life.

 

[Scouse]

Show me some validation of where the 1st amendment allows for the calling of violence.

In law do?

However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment.

I said advocate for - was very specific @Deebs. And I was at pains to point out the imminent threat prohibition.

 

[Deebs]

In law do?



I said advocate for - was very specific @Deebs. And I was at pains to point out the imminent threat prohibition.

Did you read that? Now go research true threat.

What the terrorists did was true threat and therefore the 1st amendment protection goes away. The moment they broke Police barriers/lines the threat BECAME TRUE.

It is not that fucking hard to understand.

 

[Yoni]

@Deebs

 

[DaGaffer]

I've already posted about this at length.

They are the new public court. The numbers alone mean that they're now the de-facto forum for public debate. There's not a media organisation, business (large or small - corporation or coffee shop) that isn't on there - and they're there because that is where the public is.

When they were small, no big deal. But they are now the public sphere. To cut yourself off from that voluntarily is to neuter your business and to cut yourself off from public debate.

If you're a public figure you pretty much HAVE to be there.

Notable exceptions, ofc. But the internet has changed the face of communications. Newspapers have died as the primary communication medium. Deeb's idea that either Labour or the Tories would be happy to use gov.uk as a platform for anything other than official government information, rather than campaigning (which is all on facebook and twitter, again - because that's where the public is) is ridiculous.

That's why we've been having a debate about how do you regulate big tech. IMO it's easy - 1st Amendment rights need to apply. They're a platform for public discourse - and in America that public discourse is protected from criminalisation. And good things have been achieved through social media - the organisation of the violent Arab Spring comes to mind.

But that's "good violence", no?

Job's right. As is Merkel. Simplistically as possible - if you don't protect speech, then you have China.

1st Amendment rights do apply; the Government doesn't stop you exercising your freedom of speech on Twitter or Facebook, Twitter and Facebook do, which isn't precluded. If the US government nationalised Facebook, then they'd have to let everyone have unrestricted freedom of speech on it. Explain that one to Trumpistas; the only way to give them 1st Amendment "Freedom" on Social media is through state ownership, and than stand back as their heads explode.

Anyhoo, given that will never happen, unfettered freedom of speech on social media, a. won't happen (because of a million other restrictions from copyright to libel laws) and b. Freedom of speech isn't the problem. Echo chambers are the problem. Algorithms that let you live in a self-reinforcing bubble of bullshit are the problem

 

[Deebs]

@Deebs

View attachment 43579

Thanks was looking for that spot.

 

[Scouse]

Did you read that? Now go research true threat.

What the terrorists did was true threat and therefore the 1st amendment protection goes away. The moment they broke Police barriers/lines the threat BECAME TRUE.

It is not that fucking hard to understand.

I've repeatedly stated that I don't give a shit about Trump. I'm not that bothered by what happened at the Capitol building - I'm interested in the principles of free speech and who and what should be able to censor it.

I agree that it's absolutely arguable that the 1st amendment protection went away when trump allegedly "incited" - and that can be found out in the courts. I've been very clear on that Deebs but I think you're missing that point tbh. And I don't know what to do about that - I answered your question with a point of law and you responded with "but what about THIS" - well, I wasn't talking about that.



This'll piss you off tho:

I refuse to acknowledge the labelling as "terrorists". Terrorism as a label became bullshit around 9/11 when the Bush administration redefined what terrorism meant - in order to "catch all". We argued on here at the time about what a despicable cunt Bush was - and how it was dangerous for people that America was unilaterally re-writing what was meant by "Terrorist" - ostensibly so they could tool around the world shooting people, but the worry was that they'd apply it to violent domestic protestors.

That's exactly what has happened - they were fucking violent protestors, pure and simple - we all know it. And in 2001 we'd have said exactly that - but 20 years later we've forgotten our outrage over that and in our hatred for Trump and his arseholes we've abandoned our principles.

Slowly but surely the state is eroding our freedoms. And we're happy for that to happen as long as we see people we don't like get hurt.

 

[Deebs]

I've repeatedly stated that I don't give a shit about Trump. I'm not that bothered by what happened at the Capitol building - I'm interested in the principles of free speech and who and what should be able to censor it.

I agree that it's absolutely arguable that the 1st amendment protection went away when trump allegedly "incited" - and that can be found out in the courts. I've been very clear on that Deebs but I think you're missing that point tbh. And I don't know what to do about that - I answered your question with a point of law and you responded with "but what about THIS" - well, I wasn't talking about that.



This'll piss you off tho:

I refuse to acknowledge the labelling as "terrorists". Terrorism as a label became bullshit around 9/11 when the Bush administration redefined what terrorism meant - in order to "catch all". We argued on here at the time about what a despicable cunt Bush was - and how it was dangerous for people that America was unilaterally re-writing what was meant by "Terrorist" - ostensibly so they could tool around the world shooting people, but the worry was that they'd apply it to violent domestic protestors.

That's exactly what has happened - they were fucking violent protestors, pure and simple - we all know it. And in 2001 we'd have said exactly that - but 20 years later we've forgotten our outrage over that and in our hatred for Trump and his arseholes we've abandoned our principles.

Slowly but surely the state is eroding our freedoms. And we're happy for that to happen as long as we see people we don't like get hurt.

Look, you clearly stated that violent protests under the 1st Amendment are protected. They are not as ruled by the Supreme Court.

I don't give two fucks about you labelling the terrorists as "protesters". They are domestic terrorists and many lawmakers, lawyers and others agree with that label in the US. They carry weight, your label is about as useful as a piece of dogshit on a shoe.

Now go read

True threat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Threatening government officials of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

then kindly shut the fuck up on your detailed knowledge of the 1st Amendment.