You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Current Events Thread
Parler is already censoring posts because those reasonable folks are calling for Pence to face a firing squad. There is no corner of society that accepts this—and it should be censored, and Supreme Court precedent supports such action.
That's not censorship, big, calling for violence is a violation of a platforms terms and is absolutely acceptable, and you know that's not what I'm talking about.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
I think we are at a point where censorship on the Web is essential. I'm not talking about getting rid of Facebook etc, but sites allowing hate speech or incitement of violence should have consequences. UK and Ireland have hate laws and it is hardly an erosion of our freedoms ffs. People should be responsible for what they put out there. Free speech and hate speech are not the same.
The masses are just too uneducated to trust them on the web without consequence.
Re: Current Events Thread
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can incite violence. It doesn’t mean you can intentionally lie to manipulate people.
So many people so concerned about their rights but not concerned about responsibilities.
The very notion that a social media platform was created to cater to whack jobs and conspiracy theorists is crazy enough.
Any incitement of violence should be removed. I don't know where we're getting our wires crossed with what I'm saying. Again, I haven't seen this level of concern about this for the past year.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
IRISH OS1R1S wrote:misterID wrote:Don't go liking me too much, I think he should be impeached
Is that because of what happened with the capitol building or something else?
Not a loaded question BTW, just curious.
That and his behavior regarding getting the election overturned. I think he crossed the line contacting state officials.
Gotcha and agree.
Re: Current Events Thread
I think we are at a point where censorship on the Web is essential. I'm not talking about getting rid of Facebook etc, but sites allowing hate speech or incitement of violence should have consequences. UK and Ireland have hate laws and it is hardly an erosion of our freedoms ffs. People should be responsible for what they put out there. Free speech and hate speech are not the same.
The masses are just too uneducated to trust them on the web without consequence.
Look, calling for violence is not protected speech, we've already established that. Me saying a trans woman is not a woman but a transwoman is now considered violence. That's not an exaggeration, Twitter will ban you for saying that. It's not only considered hate speech but violent rhetoric. I do not want these people making decisions on what is or isn't violent speech. If you do, then I don't know what to say.
Censorship is a means of destruction and power.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
That wasn't directed at you, just posted my thought on the subject because it was mentioned is all.
Also I'm not saying the social media would be in charge, I'm talking new laws to regulate such scenarios.
That was really the only point I was making. We need to do something to stop rumour and lies being able to gain so much traction with the aid of these companies.
Re: Current Events Thread
bigbri wrote:Parler is already censoring posts because those reasonable folks are calling for Pence to face a firing squad. There is no corner of society that accepts this—and it should be censored, and Supreme Court precedent supports such action.
That's not censorship, big, calling for violence is a violation of a platforms terms and is absolutely acceptable, and you know that's not what I'm talking about.
For the most part my post was sarcastic and it wasn’t in response to anyone specifically.
I just wanted to point out there is no place for this in our society, even Parler knows this. The Brandenburg Supreme Court case pretty much supports this, even though a social media platform banning folks isn’t really a First Amendment issue.
Banning on social media is more like not serving someone because they want a rainbow wedding cake. That precedent has also been set.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Current Events Thread
misterID wrote:bigbri wrote:Parler is already censoring posts because those reasonable folks are calling for Pence to face a firing squad. There is no corner of society that accepts this—and it should be censored, and Supreme Court precedent supports such action.
That's not censorship, big, calling for violence is a violation of a platforms terms and is absolutely acceptable, and you know that's not what I'm talking about.
For the most part my post was sarcastic and it wasn’t in response to anyone specifically.
I just wanted to point out there is no place for this in our society, even Parler knows this. The Brandenburg Supreme Court case pretty much supports this, even though a social media platform banning folks isn’t really a First Amendment issue.
Banning on social media is more like not serving someone because they want a rainbow wedding cake. That precedent has also been set.
FACEBOOK IS NOTHING LIKE YOUR CORNER BAKERY. Stop acting like they are some small private business.
Also please everyone stop citing the “inciting violence” or “hate speech” examples. Those have never been protected under free speech. They can ban anyone they want for any fvcking reason and you guys seems to support it.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
bigbri wrote:misterID wrote:That's not censorship, big, calling for violence is a violation of a platforms terms and is absolutely acceptable, and you know that's not what I'm talking about.
For the most part my post was sarcastic and it wasn’t in response to anyone specifically.
I just wanted to point out there is no place for this in our society, even Parler knows this. The Brandenburg Supreme Court case pretty much supports this, even though a social media platform banning folks isn’t really a First Amendment issue.
Banning on social media is more like not serving someone because they want a rainbow wedding cake. That precedent has also been set.
FACEBOOK IS NOTHING LIKE YOUR CORNER BAKERY. Stop acting like they are some small private business.
Also please everyone stop citing the “inciting violence” or “hate speech” examples. Those have never been protected under free speech. They can ban anyone they want for any fvcking reason and you guys seems to support it.
Let's be real, you generally don't get banned from these places for nowt. We agree inciting violence is not protected.
Well Trump incited violence and got banned. What's the problem?
Even some of his own party are owning that.
Re: Current Events Thread
misterID wrote:bigbri wrote:Parler is already censoring posts because those reasonable folks are calling for Pence to face a firing squad. There is no corner of society that accepts this—and it should be censored, and Supreme Court precedent supports such action.
That's not censorship, big, calling for violence is a violation of a platforms terms and is absolutely acceptable, and you know that's not what I'm talking about.
For the most part my post was sarcastic and it wasn’t in response to anyone specifically.
I just wanted to point out there is no place for this in our society, even Parler knows this. The Brandenburg Supreme Court case pretty much supports this, even though a social media platform banning folks isn’t really a First Amendment issue.
Banning on social media is more like not serving someone because they want a rainbow wedding cake. That precedent has also been set.
I would say this, as a company that serves the public you cannot deny service based on race, sex, sexuality, religious or political beliefs. These are basic civil rights companies must adhere to if they serve the public. This isn't like "no shoes, no shirt, no service" this is discrimination.
At this point, Twitter is a publisher. They're deciding what is news, what's disseminated.
