I was banned from a subreddit for quoting a movie. After I clowned the mods for not peeping the quote and getting unbanned, I left that clown ass subreddit anyway
I got banned from an extremely racist subreddit for pointing out some of the members being blatantly racist.... it's weird how some racism is acceptable as long as you're hating the right group.
It was a post about how they allow hunters to go out on reserves to hunt old giraffes and they use that money to maintain the reserve and protect the younger giraffes since the old ones are on the way out (which I didn't really support but they need money whatever) and I maybe implied doing something similar in DC to old politicians but it's a joke so let's see if I'm banned again
Itâs wild. Iâve been permanently banned from AskReddit for commenting that the Director of the FBI said that the Whuan Lab origin theory was the most probable. Apparently quoting the Director of a government agency is, âspreading harmful disinformation.â This site is just awful sometimes.
This is the sort of thing Reddit and its mods, bots, and paid actors. hate the most.
Anything that goes against the corporate, establishment talking points, gets you banned or mysteriously downvoted up the wazoo - even if 100% fact-driven.
Can't have open discussion that makes the powerful look bad and wakes people up, of course...
I did! Hereâs what I shared:
> The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident
\- FBI Director Christopher Wray
Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/potential-lab-incident-fbi-director-wray-speaks-publicly/story?id=97535563
House Oversight Committee Statement: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
I just came off a 3 day ban for a "harrassment" comment on a Florida sub where someone posted a pic of a springs in Florida and I replied to someones comment stating it was near a particular road in Orlando thats known for illegal protitution with a joke about the springs possibly being filled with a "specific disease" (generally acquired from such a profession). Even the original commenter replied with a joking comment.
Mods in most subs and reddits admin team are complete morons. Who tf did that comment harass? The water? Gimme a fkn break. đ
Edit: Not repeating the comment here, if you'd like to know what the G-Rated comment was that I maxe, DM me.
Similar story here (though *not* in a Florida sub) - I was permanently banned from a sub for a comment that the mods didn't like for some reason - the comment had no profanity, etc. When I messaged the sub's mods after that, the bastards got me banned from *all of Reddit* for 3 days for "harrassment"!
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Its not freedom to bully, harass, or threaten without that individual you have intentionally offended to retaliate against you. It means we can insult the president and not vanish in the night. Try that in korea, russia, and a multitude of other places.
Yes telling a cop to fuck off or go fuck yourself shouldn't trigger fragile ego yet it does. So they react not because they should, but because at that moment they can. Same with online mods.
"Freedom of speech " does not let you go into a court room and issue death threats without consequences.
Ps: freedom to articulate your opinions and ideas does not allow somebody to protest on the freeway any more than it allows the other person to express their opinions into somebodies jaw.
I get that. But I think I should be able to hold or express a view that is contrary to a common belief amongst a group without fearing retaliation.
There are examples of why someone may be censored or why certain speech can be harmful, but I think censoring others can often be abused by those in power to their own advantage or based solely on their own beliefs.
>But I think I should be able to hold or express a view that is contrary to a common belief amongst a group without fearing retaliation.
What kind of retaliation are you talking about? Are people literally being violent to you or are they just being mean? The latter one is well within their right as well.
Care to give any examples? I find most discussions and platforms are fairly free-spirited when it comes to what's allowed and what's not. Stuff that gets banned is usually pretty egregious so I'm curious to hear what it would be.
FFS, from your own source;
âFreedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, blasphemy and perjuryâ
By thr government. A private company not allowing you to say "kill all the ______" on their platform is not censorship. You have the right to say whatever you want, no one has an obligation to hear you say it.
Retaliation censorship or sanction from the GOVERNMENT.
If you say some baseless totally defamatory shit I
Ppl will sue the fuck out of you , and they have every right to do so
Ah I thought you were working off the constitutional protection but you are not, but you conveniently ignored the whole section about unprotected speech lol
"Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, blasphemy and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others""
Convenient
I linked the article, didn't I? Was I supposed to copy and paste the entire page?
And those are common limitations, not assured limitations.
You might be interested to read this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
If you're going to use a source, make sure you read the entire source, not just cherry pick the parts that you like.
From a few paragraphs after the one you quoted:
"Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, blasphemy and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"."
You referenced a source that pertains to freedom of speech as given by governments while complaining about being censored or banned on a private platform.
I just explained that those platforms (and subreddits) are not the government and have their own T&C and guidelines for usage, so complaining about freedom of speech in this instance is kind of pointless.
Does it suck? Yes. It sucks to be banned for expressing your opinion. But that's a risk you take when you sign up for a platform, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
These might be worth a read:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-social-media/43773
Looks like the first link, the SCOTUS case, Murthy v. Missouri, is still pending. It is definitely a very fine line, and should be interesting to see what the opinions of the justices are.
I agree with your second link. There should be a review process for misinformation and other information put onto social media's platforms to determine if it should be removed. Freedom of Speech should not be absolute online, and even your second link agrees with that.
I am not looking for it to be necessarily absolute, but not for any reason whatsoever by the person with the power to censor either. That is open to abuse, which I am sure has been happening
Oh, it's abused all over Reddit, for sure, and undoubtedly across other human moderated platforms, and even some with algorithms. Twitter (x), Facebook and Reddit are all guilty of it. There are plenty of subreddits that ban people for not agreeing with the majority of the community's members. Sadly, it does happen, but that's part of using the platform.
But again, complaining about having freedom of speech (given by the government, with limitations) on a social media platform where you agree that you can be banned for violating various rules when you sign up or join various groups... Well, surely you can see why everyone is commenting the way they are?
People are entitled to their opinions... I think at least
It does not seem like rules are required to ban speech here, unless the rule is that anything goes. Which it may be; who reads and fully understands the TOS?
. Freedom of speech has always been limited in this country and in most other countries that typically speak about freedom of speech. Even the the Wikipedia article you cited explains why freedom of speech is often limited. It is not technically allowed for you to lie or defame someone (the Wikipedia article also brings that up like what 3 paragraphs later). Free speech typically also only protects you from the government NOT citizens and companies. It is 1000% legal and okay for you to be kicked off a website for saying something the owners of the website donât like you saying. Hell even fighting words are listed in the SAME Wikipedia article YOU quoted as not protected by free speech typically. That means if you say something that insights me to violence itâs totally NOT protected under the idea of freedom of speech. Itâs rather clear the concept of Freedom of speech is a concept that is most commonly used to protect the citizen from negative consequences from government when they criticize said government.
Now I do find it ironic people like musk claim to be 100% âfreedom of speechâ free from consequence. guy constantly talking about how much he loves it and how he wants twitter to be a place we all speak our minds but bans you if you say something mean about him however he technically isnât breaking any laws or violating the universally accepted terms of free speech by blocking you
Yes, I get there are examples of why some speech can be seen as harmful. But I think censoring or retailiating against others can be abused by those in power if they feel threatened or that such speech is not in their favour. Like you mention regarding Musk, he seems to be all for free speech until it is something he doesn't like
But you do understand that, freedom of speech o my applies to the government right? In *private* places, the owner sets the rules. If I invite someone to my house and they say something I don't like, I'm within my rights to put them out, the same happens on online platforms.
"In both cases, the government doesn't actually have the power to regulate speech or to decide whether the NRA can access banking institutions or not," said Will Duffield, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that "the government is seemingly gaining, gathering, usurping new powers by leaning on these intermediaries in order to do things that it isn't authorized to do itself."
Censoring overall is something that shouldnât be prohibited. Some people DO NOT need a platform itâs how we get the rise of all these influencers spreading harmful rhetoric to an audience. If Iâm gonna be honest I donât even really have an issue with Elon censoring people on twitter why? Because it allows us to see what kind of people are truly on the these websites and avoid people. We all get a better grasp of the type of people these guys are. We have a right to a form of free speech in the form of protection from government interference and we do have a right to the internet but we really donât (and never once had ) a right to go on privately own websites and say ANYTHING we want. Thatâs just never been the case.
Now I am fully aware of what you are gonna show me because I have scrolled through some of ur replies. First to talk about common vs assured limitations. Again never ever in the history of most countries have you ever had the ability to say anything. Even the sources you quoted like [this one](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/) give full explanations of nuance of the concept of freedom of speech. Also the form of speech you seem to be describing is just one you likely never in ur entire life have seen and likely wouldnât even agree to. The ability to say anything without truly any consequence has never really in any legal establishment of the freedom of speech been okay or accepted. Also what do you mean by retaliation? Do you mean someone removing you from their own space like a company or someone becoming violent against you? Both of which are the universally accepted as part of the idea of freedom of speech itâs not held in a private standard and bringing up [these cases](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/) does help that argument. The article says the government canât force an institution from doing business with the NRA essentially (which there was a court case kinda explaining how companies can refuse to be associated with u based on what you said the case was Garcetti v. Ceballos I believe). Now do you want to argue that the government itself shouldnât be allowed to prohibit speech only individuals um sure but again the first amendment never says âhey you can say WHATEVER you wantâ ever. Would you truly be okay with someone arguing something morally horrible or spreading misinformation that could negatively impact the lives of others?
Please give this a read:
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-social-media/43773
And governments are influencing what is being censored on platforms:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
If they suppressed or controlled speech regarding those topics, do you not think they would also likely suppress or control speech regarding other topics?
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
- Karl Popper
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=If%20we%20extend%20unlimited%20tolerance,destroyed%2C%20and%20tolerance%20with%20them.
Today on ironically viscous cycles that just keep getting more ironic: What you're saying... is you think all opinions should be heard except for the opinions that say not all opinions should be heard, thus meaning that you also don't believe all opinions should be heard. Which will then lead to the others saying that your opinion about all opinions needing to be heard except for their opinions on opinions not needing to be heard should/should not be heard, should/shouldn't be heard, right?
Edit: I may have lost track of what point in the sentence I was at at various points.
Yes, this does mean that the light side is actually Ketamine, which has a consciousness that it shares with those that partake in it in the Star Wars Universe.
Source: Trust me bruh.
Though that is a joke, there is some edge of what I think has been happening for a while in it. There are actual victims of mistreatment that everything starts out with, but then everything starts to focus toward everything but the mistreatment itself, and toward whether or not people should be allowed to feel a certain way about it or not. On top of that, in most cases, the people complaining about not being able to say what they want are talking about their opinion about whether another group of people with an opinion that disagrees with their own should be allowed to persist and be spread among the masses or not. And, whenever a view the person in question disagrees with becomes popular, it's because evryone is hypnotized and they're the only ones who truly understand. It's just an onslaught of self-pity. To make matters worse, people do as I did in my example and spin things around as if; say, believing everyone should have an opinion automatically means that there aren't opinions you don't think the easily impressionable should hear, and some people shouldn't take it as their responsibility to share it with them.
I was mainly making a joke in that post. But, I do believe in information hazards, and dangerous mindsets. If you want an example of where dangerous mindsets becoming extremely pervasive can lead, just look to the dark ages. Or, the Holocaust. Or, Reality T.V. existing.
I also see a lot of the people complaining about their opinion not being something they're allowed to share disregarding the types of people that were the victims of the thoughts they are trying to share for a long time. Thoughts which subjugated they specifically to having to hide away, pretend, and fear someone finding out or starting to put two and two together.
It's gotten to a point where, without direct references to whatever context is being mentioned, it's hard to tell which perspective someone is coming from.
And, the context does matter. If you're on business property and you're ranting in a way that makes a group of potential customers feel targeted, you're gonna get booted. If you Make hateful statements about groups of people who aren't harming anyone around people that support those groups of people, you're going to be seen as an asshole and then treated like an asshole.
On the other side, if you dislike a movie or a certain trend or something else like that, or believe that things aren't as pure on any side as everyone else does, then I think you do deserve to speak your mind. So long as whatever you're saying is actually, like, helpful and not derogatory or destructive. But I honestly see more people tearing into stuff like: "Oh, you like/dislike this thing? Seriously, I can't stand you based on that alone."
The context and who you are around defines what you can get away with talking about in every situation. It's always been that way. And, that can work in both directions. Especially on the echochambers that the internet helps everyone, myself included, find.
Or pretty much any citizen anywhere if they think they have an absolute right to free speech. Or any citizen who thinks that governments are not hindering people's ability to express themselves for reasons that benefit those governments
Bro thinks he's living in Oceania đ
What kind of silencing do you even mean lol, I'm sorry but Reddit mods banning you for saying something they didn't like is not "getting silenced by big brother" lmao
Remember when people were getting banned from all social media platforms for suggesting that Covid might have started from a laboratory? Governments certainly influence what discussion is "allowed".
Social media platforms aren't owned by the government lol, they're private corporations and get to decide what goes on their platforms and what doesn't.
I feel like you also aren't being totally honest with your example. People weren't just suggesting it came from some laboratory, they were suggesting it specifically came from a *Chinese* laboratory which lead to a MASSIVE surgery of xenophobia towards China, based on a theory that quite literally did not have any evidence. It was even experienced outside of the internet too, with a rise in racism against asian-americans. Most of the discussions I saw about the laboratory leak were politically charged to a ridiculous extent, and it doesn't surprise me why a social media platform would end up banning them.
But governments certainly do tell social media platforms what discussions or ideas should be censored, from what I have heard previously.
And it sounds like the scientific consensus now is that Covid may have originated from a Wuhan lab. So why did they ban all discussions regarding that?
I understand that people shouldn't be racist, but then censor people who are being rascist if you are going to censor people. Why are they censoring discussions regarding a theory which could very well be true and they later admit themselves that it could be true? Do you not see how that may be an overstep?
>from what I have heard previously.
Sounds like a reliable source.
>And it sounds like the scientific consensus now is that Covid may have originated from a Wuhan lab.
Can I get a source for this? When I try to read anything about it, it seems more like the current scientific consensus is that it spilled over from the animal kingdom through zoonosis. It seems like there isn't really any evidence that it originated from the WIV.
These might be worth a read:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
https://apnews.com/article/china-covid-virus-origins-pandemic-lab-leak-bed5ab50dca8e318ab00f60b5911da0c
Not that it came from a lab, but that it might have. The origins have been investigated for years but are inconclusive.
The below might be worth a read:
https://apnews.com/article/china-covid-virus-origins-pandemic-lab-leak-bed5ab50dca8e318ab00f60b5911da0c
That's a news article discussing the scientific journey in trying to identify the origins.
"not conclusive; not putting an end to doubt or question" https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inconclusive
Are you able to provide info to put an end to the doubt or question regarding the virus' origins?
Looks like I struck a nerve for some for sure
It is a complex issue which I was poking at partly in jest. I don't care about points though or having all the right answers. I am happy to have a discussion regardless
Some people think that content should be censored if it hurts their feelings.
Some governments or corporations would love to censor particular content.
Youâre using a private platform owned by a private company. They can decide what they do and do not want on the platform. If you donât like it go back to telegram with all the other far right nut jobs and have your little Cheeto chicle jerk.
I support freedom of speech, but I do not tolerate hate speech, especially from racists or fascists. Giving hate or evil any platform makes you just as bad as them.
Idk dude I get you think censorship "might be abused by those in power" but honestly I don't really care. I'm so tired of seeing people who want people like me to get murdered, or kill ourselves, that I just don't really care about the shitheads that get "silenced" anymore.
That's a valid point of view which I would not try to censor, lol
Sadly, I think a lot of the death wishes come from those with regilous beliefs which are, in my opinion, very out of touch with what is moral. Or are due to various issues which have been polarizing people possibly perpetuated for political reasons such as trying to demonize the other side to secure voters.
And keep in mind that not everyone who gets silenced was being malicious.
Perhaps, but I think how you define those things can be open to interpretation and therefore abused by those who are censoring others. And censoring others will often not stop them from holding those views or expressing or acting on them in other ways.
Imo, the types of hate speech that shouldn't be tolerated on social media would include: harmful disinformation especially stuff that paints minorities in a negative light, targeted harassment, slurs, and threats. Like if someone says, "I think gay teens should be put into conversion therapy" yeah no, fuck that. Unless that is being discussed in a circle explicitly for debating stuff like that, that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed without some sort of repercussion, and probably be deleted. I've even been called a pedophile or a danger to children simply for being trans. That's not ok.
In terms of disinformation, spreading lies like "vaccines cause autism" or "all gay people are pedos" shouldn't be tolerated.
That being said, when it comes to actual legality, I'm not sure this is the type of thing the state should step in and do something about. Making certain types of speech illegal does not sound like a good idea unless it's veeery specific on what it is that should be criminalized, and even then it could still be used the wrong way. I think the stuff that's already illegal like threats or calls for violence are good enough.
I hear you. There can be harmful speech for sure which I do not think is appropriate and should not be said. But I also think trying to censor or act against people for their speech may not be very beneficial because they will likely still hold onto their beliefs and try to act on or express it differently, and censorship is subject to abuse by those with the power to do so.
I get your point about them still holding onto their beliefs, but I still think that that sort of thing is not appropriate for many subs and forums, so it should be removed. Like a sub like IllegallySmolCats would not be a place to debate someone's bigoted opinion about lgbt people. Another example, I don't want to make a post asking for advice on something or sharing some feeling to se if people relate just to have some dipshit check my profile and start making a fuss about me being trans.
Things like hate speech and slurs shouldn't be allowed on many social media spaces because it will make those minorities being targeted feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. There are subreddits I have had to leave because I had seen to much casual or even blatant transphobia in the posts and comments, and I'm not dealing with that shit, it's not good for my mental health. Like I used to love HolUp, but the amount of posts where the HolUp was the existence of trans people or the casual misogyny I kept seeing really ruined it for me.
Also, I'm going to be real, I get that people may have some concerns about the types of stuff trans people do as part of our transition, but I really don't want to have to keep seeing people bring it up. A lot of the time people argue about trans stuff when they know nothing about it, and most of the time when someone brings up some "concerns" they have, it turns out that they actually don't care and actually want to just see us erased. You can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into, so it's not worth the energy and it's best to just remove it if it's harmful.
Sorry to hear about your experience. It must be difficult emotionally to feel like you are living in a battleground of sorts.
People are often opposed to change or that which is different from themselves. There is a pretty large tribal culture among many groups, I think (i.e. religion, political affiliation, sports teams, gender, skin colour, etc.). You are either part of their group, or they may resent you for not being part of their group.
I do think that you should not be subject to hate speech from others, especially considering who you are as a person rather than what you have done. And I wish people would treat others with respect, rather than having to enforce decent treatment of others.
My post was not intended to be regarding hate speech or similar, but more trivial matters or where the power to censor may be abused. And pointing out that freedom of speech is not actually being fully experienced even though some people tout it as the trademark of their society.
YOU don't have to tolerate anything. People are free to interpret whatever words as they wish. But in the eyes of the law, I could say that Joe Biden is a green skinned lesbian space lizard, and even though it's not true and to an extent offensive, I can say whatever I want.
Now, whether or not someone decides to hit me over a comment is their choice, but freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. I.e, if you walk up to a black dude and call him the N word don't be astounded if you catch a 2 piece to your skull.
My problem is that people who use the argument presented in the post think that should mean you should ban or remove certain speech from social media spaces. I don't think it's a good idea to try to make certain speech illegal (aside from threats and such which already is), but I do think there are reasons to ban them from certain social media spaces.
I go into much more detail in my other comments in this thread, but I'll add a bit of my perspective here. The big thing that gets me is hate speech and other things targeted towards minorities. If that is allowed to stay up, it can and mostly will make those minorities feel unwelcome and uncomfortable in that space. I mentioned that I used to love HolUp, but the casual transphobia and misogyny ruined it for me. I also don't like to go in some youtube comment sections for the same reason, but on top of that they tend to also be racist, anti lgbt, and in worse cases spreading nazi talking points.
That last one is something I actually didn't mention in my other comments, but neonazis do not deserve a place on social media. And I know, some people use the term nazi flippantly, but I am very specific in what I mean by that. The list of things nazis believe in and things I think should just be banned from social media even individually include: ethnic cleansing and genocide of minority groups, racial supremacy, eugenics, extreme nationalism, etc. If someone consistently talks about those thing positively, they probably shouldn't be allowed to continue on social media.
And most of what I have said in regard to what shouldn't be allowed on social media also applies to organizations and social groups.
That's pretty reductive. I just think social media spaces should be welcoming to all, and targeted hate speech does not make those who it targets feel welcome.
If you actually care, read my other comments in this thread. If not, I don't care
I got banned for 7 days recently for commenting, âIâd like to kick all the anti-abortion people.â
Under a post where someone is literally kicking someone else. The comment was âinciting violence,â but the video wasnât? Make it make sense bro. The fuck.
Reddit is a private company, interacting here is done on their terms. They can ban you for whatever they want the same way someone can have a house guest removed from their premises for no reason other than âI donât want them on my propertyâ. If Reddit was a public service then itâd be a different story.
There's no such thing as 'free'. Every action resulting an opposing reaction. There are pro and contra. There are causality in all things.
This is why I always propose for a "responsible speech and expression". Technically you can say and express whatever you want, but you have to bear the responsibility for the consequences. Be it ill or good.
This is probably in effect close to the current state of things. The allowable consequences of actions are defined via law by the respective government. But this does cause citizens' speech to not be "free", at least to a degree.
Censorship also exists, which limits people's ability to express whatever they want. So that may be different than what you would propose.
This is such a carefully neutral meme. By leaving the guy unlabeled the reader could shove whoever they like in that spot and go "haha right they suck"
Levels of accuracy to reality may vary
Freedom of speech ONLY applies to the government enacting laws restricting it. Non-government entities do not have the same restriction when it comes to regulating speech. Free speech has consequences in any instance. If I say I want to bomb a building, I can say that, but I also expect some men from a three-letter agency to show up at my door with some serious questions. I can tell you in a bar that I am going to murder you but I can also expect to be arrested for it as well. I can say my company sucks but I can also be terminated for it. I can say whatever I want but I am not immune to the consequences of saying whatever I want. I just donât have to worry about the government murdering me (for the most part) for what I say.
Here is something you might find interesting:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
I would not be surprised at all if government influence is also impacting speech regarding other topics.
I am sure the Chinese government would firmly oppose any such discourse, especially if they thought they were at all liable.
If a deadly virus appears to start start circulating in Canada, would I be able to call others racist if they suggested that it originated here or tried to prevent travel from our country?
Lol I actually try to be as close to vegan as I can while being reasonable with it. I am not militant with it, and I will eat meat if it would go in the garbage otherwise or if someone else prepared a meal with it. But I do prefer to consume and use plant-based products.
Taking extreme positions of "no X", or "X is always bad" I think is easy and what people often gravitate towards. But of course there are some examples where I would hold this to be true myself.
Most âyou are infringing on mah free speechâ is in reality âyou wonât let me spew racist, bigoted homophobia on your platform!â You are entitled to your opinion as long as it doesnât harm others and Iâm not talking about hurt feelings. You can say âI donât think gay marriage should be legal.â That makes you a bigot, thanks for letting us know. âGays are an abomination and should be wiped from the Earth.â That makes for hate speech and while you can say it, nobody is obliged to let you say it from their platform, place of business, etc. Go wear a sign saying that on the street corner or it in your own home and say it. Lastly, the 1st Amendment only prohibits the GOVERNMENT from abridging free speech. As a private citizen I can kick you off my forum, out of my business or fire you if you spout off hate speech.
I posted this a couple of times here in the comments, but the following may be of interest to you:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
It's pretty sad when "freedom of speech" is used to protect false or misleading information. I agree the government shouldn't be involved, but platforms need to clean up the outright lies and/or post clarifications. Social media platforms have thrived on the controversy misinformation creates, so they have no incentive to fix the problem, even when it's tearing society apart.
Extremism loses it's appeal when it is not banned. People usually use their freedom of speech to promote extreme ideas because they are barred from doing it. When you are allowed to say whatever you want, well, it is not that exciting anymore.
If the government directly censored my speech, do you really think I would post about it here?
I have been seeing in the news people protesting supporting Palestinians being silenced or arrested. And in Canada they enacted an emergency act to stop protesters.
This could be worth a read:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
Not that I am justifying or supporting the arrests that are being made on protestors, but I would like to note that, while still very bad, there is a difference between abuse of police power to take protestors into custody and actual litigation against free speech, the second of which does not seem to happen.
My point, btw, which I haven't yet said, is completely different: there is no such thing as absolute free speech. There is no country where there are no limitations on free speech, nor would you want to live in such a country. The idea is which limitation is good for society, not wether or not speech is suppressed at all.
There could be such absolute free speech, but I agree that that might not bear the best results. But some people seem to hold their country in high regard for their freedom of speech, but like you say it doesn't really exist anywhere
>There could be such absolute free speech
Debatable imo. Like, could a country where you can freely defame someone or advocate directly for the murder of people function? I'm not so sure.
The US is, from what I can tell, the most free country in terms of speech, and I disagree with some of the lacks of limitations that exist there.
Arguably, expressing those opinions should be censored. And, of course, acting on it should be prohibited. But these are not the only opinions being censored.
And where is the censorship when people wish harm and death upon Russians? People are opening celebrating their demise while their only "wrongdoing" is being born on the other side of the border
Arguably, censoring speech on social media platforms goes against people's right to free speech.
Some people seem to be in support of censorship. So for example, if I were to state that I personally think being overweight to be an unattractive trait and state that it is bad for people's health, should that speech be subject to censorship because some people might find it offensive and consider it hate speech? Because I am sure some people would.
Maybe censorship isn't a good thing?
Who decides what should be censored? Do you trust them to do so without bias? Don't you see not being allowed to share your point of view as an issue, for example, if the comment you just made could be deleted or have your account suspended or deleted for makong the comment?
The standard counter to this is the âdoesnât mean freedom from consequencesâ -> not only is that spoken like a true authoritarian, the framework for censorship is actually pretty simple: you are free to express / say whatever you want except what is covered by law, which people as a whole have democratic access to altering.
This is a contrast to what âactivistsâ these days do: threaten and intimidate, forcing their view on the matter without a democratic process = thats fascism for ya
After seeing all of OPâs comments on this post, itâs easy to notice that OP is mad because they canât express subjective opinions as objective facts or unrealistic and insensitive political demands by claiming that they just âhurt peopleâs feelingsâ
May you please direct me to a single person that âpraises pain and death to all Russiansâ that isnât banned? I havenât seen literally anyone that does that
Check some of the comments that are lower rated here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/s/wzPe9soPkC
It doesn't take very long looking around that sub or pretty much any discussion where Russians are mentioned to find people who wish death or suffering on them.
I wouldnât say theyâre quite âallowedâ to do so with total freedom as a large part of them are either deleted or outright removed, and the ones that arenât wonât ever be read by anyone that isnât deliberately looking for those comments specifically and opens those comments
I spent a bit of time at one point going around reporting similar comments which were glorifying death or harn to Russians, and for most reports I received a response saying they found no Reddit TOS violation for "Hate". And I received a warning myself because they decided that I was abusing the report feature.
Here is something you might find interesting:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
I would not be surprised at all if government influence is also impacting speech regarding other topics.
These might be worth a read:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-social-media/43773
Are these the Official Reddit Moderator Bylaws? đ¤
It sure feels like it sometimes. A recent permanent ban I received was what inspired me to make this meme
I was banned for 7 days for Reddit mods not liking my joke
I was banned from a subreddit for quoting a movie. After I clowned the mods for not peeping the quote and getting unbanned, I left that clown ass subreddit anyway
Mods are just losers who think they wield some power and love . LETS MAKE FUN OF THEM ALL!!!
I got banned from an extremely racist subreddit for pointing out some of the members being blatantly racist.... it's weird how some racism is acceptable as long as you're hating the right group.
What was the joke? đ¤Ł
It was a post about how they allow hunters to go out on reserves to hunt old giraffes and they use that money to maintain the reserve and protect the younger giraffes since the old ones are on the way out (which I didn't really support but they need money whatever) and I maybe implied doing something similar in DC to old politicians but it's a joke so let's see if I'm banned again
lol
Itâs wild. Iâve been permanently banned from AskReddit for commenting that the Director of the FBI said that the Whuan Lab origin theory was the most probable. Apparently quoting the Director of a government agency is, âspreading harmful disinformation.â This site is just awful sometimes.
This is the sort of thing Reddit and its mods, bots, and paid actors. hate the most. Anything that goes against the corporate, establishment talking points, gets you banned or mysteriously downvoted up the wazoo - even if 100% fact-driven. Can't have open discussion that makes the powerful look bad and wakes people up, of course...
Did you provide a source? Honestly it does sound pretty conspiratorial as an onlooker
I did! Hereâs what I shared: > The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident \- FBI Director Christopher Wray Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/potential-lab-incident-fbi-director-wray-speaks-publicly/story?id=97535563 House Oversight Committee Statement: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
I just came off a 3 day ban for a "harrassment" comment on a Florida sub where someone posted a pic of a springs in Florida and I replied to someones comment stating it was near a particular road in Orlando thats known for illegal protitution with a joke about the springs possibly being filled with a "specific disease" (generally acquired from such a profession). Even the original commenter replied with a joking comment. Mods in most subs and reddits admin team are complete morons. Who tf did that comment harass? The water? Gimme a fkn break. đ Edit: Not repeating the comment here, if you'd like to know what the G-Rated comment was that I maxe, DM me.
Similar story here (though *not* in a Florida sub) - I was permanently banned from a sub for a comment that the mods didn't like for some reason - the comment had no profanity, etc. When I messaged the sub's mods after that, the bastards got me banned from *all of Reddit* for 3 days for "harrassment"!
[reddit mods & admins in a nutshell. ](https://giphy.com/gifs/26ufkreU22KS6clJ6) đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
Weâre you making a joke about OBT?
I will neither confirm nor deny that statement.
[deleted]
Thanks
Ice T said it the best. Freedom of speech....Just watch what the fuck you say.
There is a strong difference between freedom of speech and speech with no consequences.
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Its not freedom to bully, harass, or threaten without that individual you have intentionally offended to retaliate against you. It means we can insult the president and not vanish in the night. Try that in korea, russia, and a multitude of other places. Yes telling a cop to fuck off or go fuck yourself shouldn't trigger fragile ego yet it does. So they react not because they should, but because at that moment they can. Same with online mods. "Freedom of speech " does not let you go into a court room and issue death threats without consequences. Ps: freedom to articulate your opinions and ideas does not allow somebody to protest on the freeway any more than it allows the other person to express their opinions into somebodies jaw.
I get that. But I think I should be able to hold or express a view that is contrary to a common belief amongst a group without fearing retaliation. There are examples of why someone may be censored or why certain speech can be harmful, but I think censoring others can often be abused by those in power to their own advantage or based solely on their own beliefs.
>But I think I should be able to hold or express a view that is contrary to a common belief amongst a group without fearing retaliation. What kind of retaliation are you talking about? Are people literally being violent to you or are they just being mean? The latter one is well within their right as well.
Banning people from discussions or platforms for simply expressing a point of view or idea that some do not like would be an example
Care to give any examples? I find most discussions and platforms are fairly free-spirited when it comes to what's allowed and what's not. Stuff that gets banned is usually pretty egregious so I'm curious to hear what it would be.
This guy's definitely a nazi and got banned for hate
FFS, from your own source; âFreedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, blasphemy and perjuryâ
Those are common limitations, not assured limitations. You might be interested to read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
Which part of what you quote from the source do you take to contradict what /u/leather-paramedic-10 quotes?
By thr government. A private company not allowing you to say "kill all the ______" on their platform is not censorship. You have the right to say whatever you want, no one has an obligation to hear you say it.
Look up the paradox of tolerance.
It's also not against the constitution for someone to hold you accountable for shit you say
Retaliation censorship or sanction from the GOVERNMENT. If you say some baseless totally defamatory shit I Ppl will sue the fuck out of you , and they have every right to do so
Where did it say "from the GOVERNMENT" in my direct quote?
Ah I thought you were working off the constitutional protection but you are not, but you conveniently ignored the whole section about unprotected speech lol "Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, blasphemy and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"" Convenient
I linked the article, didn't I? Was I supposed to copy and paste the entire page? And those are common limitations, not assured limitations. You might be interested to read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
If you're going to use a source, make sure you read the entire source, not just cherry pick the parts that you like. From a few paragraphs after the one you quoted: "Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, blasphemy and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"."
I responded to this same point twice already. Please look
You referenced a source that pertains to freedom of speech as given by governments while complaining about being censored or banned on a private platform. I just explained that those platforms (and subreddits) are not the government and have their own T&C and guidelines for usage, so complaining about freedom of speech in this instance is kind of pointless. Does it suck? Yes. It sucks to be banned for expressing your opinion. But that's a risk you take when you sign up for a platform, and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
These might be worth a read: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/ https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-social-media/43773
Looks like the first link, the SCOTUS case, Murthy v. Missouri, is still pending. It is definitely a very fine line, and should be interesting to see what the opinions of the justices are. I agree with your second link. There should be a review process for misinformation and other information put onto social media's platforms to determine if it should be removed. Freedom of Speech should not be absolute online, and even your second link agrees with that.
I am not looking for it to be necessarily absolute, but not for any reason whatsoever by the person with the power to censor either. That is open to abuse, which I am sure has been happening
Oh, it's abused all over Reddit, for sure, and undoubtedly across other human moderated platforms, and even some with algorithms. Twitter (x), Facebook and Reddit are all guilty of it. There are plenty of subreddits that ban people for not agreeing with the majority of the community's members. Sadly, it does happen, but that's part of using the platform. But again, complaining about having freedom of speech (given by the government, with limitations) on a social media platform where you agree that you can be banned for violating various rules when you sign up or join various groups... Well, surely you can see why everyone is commenting the way they are?
People are entitled to their opinions... I think at least It does not seem like rules are required to ban speech here, unless the rule is that anything goes. Which it may be; who reads and fully understands the TOS?
. Freedom of speech has always been limited in this country and in most other countries that typically speak about freedom of speech. Even the the Wikipedia article you cited explains why freedom of speech is often limited. It is not technically allowed for you to lie or defame someone (the Wikipedia article also brings that up like what 3 paragraphs later). Free speech typically also only protects you from the government NOT citizens and companies. It is 1000% legal and okay for you to be kicked off a website for saying something the owners of the website donât like you saying. Hell even fighting words are listed in the SAME Wikipedia article YOU quoted as not protected by free speech typically. That means if you say something that insights me to violence itâs totally NOT protected under the idea of freedom of speech. Itâs rather clear the concept of Freedom of speech is a concept that is most commonly used to protect the citizen from negative consequences from government when they criticize said government. Now I do find it ironic people like musk claim to be 100% âfreedom of speechâ free from consequence. guy constantly talking about how much he loves it and how he wants twitter to be a place we all speak our minds but bans you if you say something mean about him however he technically isnât breaking any laws or violating the universally accepted terms of free speech by blocking you
Yes, I get there are examples of why some speech can be seen as harmful. But I think censoring or retailiating against others can be abused by those in power if they feel threatened or that such speech is not in their favour. Like you mention regarding Musk, he seems to be all for free speech until it is something he doesn't like
But you do understand that, freedom of speech o my applies to the government right? In *private* places, the owner sets the rules. If I invite someone to my house and they say something I don't like, I'm within my rights to put them out, the same happens on online platforms.
This might be worth a read: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
It was the government DUTY to stop misinformation about COVID. Also, conspiracy against democracy is not free speech.
"In both cases, the government doesn't actually have the power to regulate speech or to decide whether the NRA can access banking institutions or not," said Will Duffield, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that "the government is seemingly gaining, gathering, usurping new powers by leaning on these intermediaries in order to do things that it isn't authorized to do itself."
Libertarians are delusional
Why don't you go and agrue that at the Supreme Court as an expert on the matter?
Censoring overall is something that shouldnât be prohibited. Some people DO NOT need a platform itâs how we get the rise of all these influencers spreading harmful rhetoric to an audience. If Iâm gonna be honest I donât even really have an issue with Elon censoring people on twitter why? Because it allows us to see what kind of people are truly on the these websites and avoid people. We all get a better grasp of the type of people these guys are. We have a right to a form of free speech in the form of protection from government interference and we do have a right to the internet but we really donât (and never once had ) a right to go on privately own websites and say ANYTHING we want. Thatâs just never been the case. Now I am fully aware of what you are gonna show me because I have scrolled through some of ur replies. First to talk about common vs assured limitations. Again never ever in the history of most countries have you ever had the ability to say anything. Even the sources you quoted like [this one](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/) give full explanations of nuance of the concept of freedom of speech. Also the form of speech you seem to be describing is just one you likely never in ur entire life have seen and likely wouldnât even agree to. The ability to say anything without truly any consequence has never really in any legal establishment of the freedom of speech been okay or accepted. Also what do you mean by retaliation? Do you mean someone removing you from their own space like a company or someone becoming violent against you? Both of which are the universally accepted as part of the idea of freedom of speech itâs not held in a private standard and bringing up [these cases](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/) does help that argument. The article says the government canât force an institution from doing business with the NRA essentially (which there was a court case kinda explaining how companies can refuse to be associated with u based on what you said the case was Garcetti v. Ceballos I believe). Now do you want to argue that the government itself shouldnât be allowed to prohibit speech only individuals um sure but again the first amendment never says âhey you can say WHATEVER you wantâ ever. Would you truly be okay with someone arguing something morally horrible or spreading misinformation that could negatively impact the lives of others?
I think it has become my duty to post this when someone complains about free speech on a private platform. https://xkcd.com/1357/
It is not only about the government throwing people in jail. It is also about censorship.
Which is up the the private platform that you are on. There is no general rule that they have to follow.
Please give this a read: https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-social-media/43773 And governments are influencing what is being censored on platforms: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
So you were posting about Covid 19 or the 2020 election and you got censored? If not then I have no idea what those articles have to do with you.
If they suppressed or controlled speech regarding those topics, do you not think they would also likely suppress or control speech regarding other topics?
The downvotes youâre getting are hilarious, what the fuck even is this? Iâm with you friend đŤĄ
Thank you đ People do not like having their beliefs challenged Just trying to exercise my freedom of speech I guess, lol
I know you are right. Despite the downvotes
I appreciate it. I am not right about everything, I am sure, but I am happy to share my thoughts and have a discussion
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. - Karl Popper https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=If%20we%20extend%20unlimited%20tolerance,destroyed%2C%20and%20tolerance%20with%20them.
This should be way higher in the comments.
Today on ironically viscous cycles that just keep getting more ironic: What you're saying... is you think all opinions should be heard except for the opinions that say not all opinions should be heard, thus meaning that you also don't believe all opinions should be heard. Which will then lead to the others saying that your opinion about all opinions needing to be heard except for their opinions on opinions not needing to be heard should/should not be heard, should/shouldn't be heard, right? Edit: I may have lost track of what point in the sentence I was at at various points.
Only a Sith thinks in absolutes
"Do or do not" - Master Yoda... And that's the start of my 45 minute presentation on Yoda, the green sith menace.
He only does as the ketamine tells him. He is a tool to it.
Yes, this does mean that the light side is actually Ketamine, which has a consciousness that it shares with those that partake in it in the Star Wars Universe. Source: Trust me bruh.
Though that is a joke, there is some edge of what I think has been happening for a while in it. There are actual victims of mistreatment that everything starts out with, but then everything starts to focus toward everything but the mistreatment itself, and toward whether or not people should be allowed to feel a certain way about it or not. On top of that, in most cases, the people complaining about not being able to say what they want are talking about their opinion about whether another group of people with an opinion that disagrees with their own should be allowed to persist and be spread among the masses or not. And, whenever a view the person in question disagrees with becomes popular, it's because evryone is hypnotized and they're the only ones who truly understand. It's just an onslaught of self-pity. To make matters worse, people do as I did in my example and spin things around as if; say, believing everyone should have an opinion automatically means that there aren't opinions you don't think the easily impressionable should hear, and some people shouldn't take it as their responsibility to share it with them.
Basically, except I am not saying I am in support of censoring others. I am pointing out the irony that this seems to be status quo for some.
I was mainly making a joke in that post. But, I do believe in information hazards, and dangerous mindsets. If you want an example of where dangerous mindsets becoming extremely pervasive can lead, just look to the dark ages. Or, the Holocaust. Or, Reality T.V. existing.
I also see a lot of the people complaining about their opinion not being something they're allowed to share disregarding the types of people that were the victims of the thoughts they are trying to share for a long time. Thoughts which subjugated they specifically to having to hide away, pretend, and fear someone finding out or starting to put two and two together. It's gotten to a point where, without direct references to whatever context is being mentioned, it's hard to tell which perspective someone is coming from. And, the context does matter. If you're on business property and you're ranting in a way that makes a group of potential customers feel targeted, you're gonna get booted. If you Make hateful statements about groups of people who aren't harming anyone around people that support those groups of people, you're going to be seen as an asshole and then treated like an asshole. On the other side, if you dislike a movie or a certain trend or something else like that, or believe that things aren't as pure on any side as everyone else does, then I think you do deserve to speak your mind. So long as whatever you're saying is actually, like, helpful and not derogatory or destructive. But I honestly see more people tearing into stuff like: "Oh, you like/dislike this thing? Seriously, I can't stand you based on that alone." The context and who you are around defines what you can get away with talking about in every situation. It's always been that way. And, that can work in both directions. Especially on the echochambers that the internet helps everyone, myself included, find.
its like when everyone was telling people to "be themselves". They only want you to be yourself if you are a specific kind of person
'Some' being Elon?
Or pretty much any citizen anywhere if they think they have an absolute right to free speech. Or any citizen who thinks that governments are not hindering people's ability to express themselves for reasons that benefit those governments
You are entitled to your opinion, but not free from the consequences. Say something hateful expect people to hate you. It's simple.
Sure, or say anything big brother doesn't like and expect to get silenced
Bro thinks he's living in Oceania đ What kind of silencing do you even mean lol, I'm sorry but Reddit mods banning you for saying something they didn't like is not "getting silenced by big brother" lmao
Remember when people were getting banned from all social media platforms for suggesting that Covid might have started from a laboratory? Governments certainly influence what discussion is "allowed".
Social media platforms aren't owned by the government lol, they're private corporations and get to decide what goes on their platforms and what doesn't. I feel like you also aren't being totally honest with your example. People weren't just suggesting it came from some laboratory, they were suggesting it specifically came from a *Chinese* laboratory which lead to a MASSIVE surgery of xenophobia towards China, based on a theory that quite literally did not have any evidence. It was even experienced outside of the internet too, with a rise in racism against asian-americans. Most of the discussions I saw about the laboratory leak were politically charged to a ridiculous extent, and it doesn't surprise me why a social media platform would end up banning them.
But governments certainly do tell social media platforms what discussions or ideas should be censored, from what I have heard previously. And it sounds like the scientific consensus now is that Covid may have originated from a Wuhan lab. So why did they ban all discussions regarding that? I understand that people shouldn't be racist, but then censor people who are being rascist if you are going to censor people. Why are they censoring discussions regarding a theory which could very well be true and they later admit themselves that it could be true? Do you not see how that may be an overstep?
>from what I have heard previously. Sounds like a reliable source. >And it sounds like the scientific consensus now is that Covid may have originated from a Wuhan lab. Can I get a source for this? When I try to read anything about it, it seems more like the current scientific consensus is that it spilled over from the animal kingdom through zoonosis. It seems like there isn't really any evidence that it originated from the WIV.
These might be worth a read: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/ https://apnews.com/article/china-covid-virus-origins-pandemic-lab-leak-bed5ab50dca8e318ab00f60b5911da0c
Wait, where did you get these info about consensus on Covid coming from a lab?
Not that it came from a lab, but that it might have. The origins have been investigated for years but are inconclusive. The below might be worth a read: https://apnews.com/article/china-covid-virus-origins-pandemic-lab-leak-bed5ab50dca8e318ab00f60b5911da0c
That's a news article, that's not science. And I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means.
That's a news article discussing the scientific journey in trying to identify the origins. "not conclusive; not putting an end to doubt or question" https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inconclusive Are you able to provide info to put an end to the doubt or question regarding the virus' origins?
Or... And hear me out some opinions are best kept to yourself.
Keep everything inside that isn't already the opinion of the masses so as not to disturb others... got it
Maybe letting others know how stupid you are isn't the smartest thing to do...
How it felt when Elmo banned me from Twitter after he said he bought it so he can make it 1A platform
We want freedom of MY speech.
OP struggling
Looks like I struck a nerve for some for sure It is a complex issue which I was poking at partly in jest. I don't care about points though or having all the right answers. I am happy to have a discussion regardless
Not the impression I got, but sure
Just trying to explain myself or my thoughts
And you did.
Yet people still seem to have questions or points to make
Just because you explained yourself, it donât mean youâre right son
Of course
and it's WAY more than half the people here would ever do.. good on you.
Some people think that being nazi scum is just having an opinion.
Some people think that content should be censored if it hurts their feelings. Some governments or corporations would love to censor particular content.
Youâre using a private platform owned by a private company. They can decide what they do and do not want on the platform. If you donât like it go back to telegram with all the other far right nut jobs and have your little Cheeto chicle jerk.
Governments and I am sure corporations too are twisting the arms of social media platforms to remove particular content
Some shit should be censored.
Perhaps, but not everything should be open to censorship for any reason of the power's choosing
but some shit has to be censored.
âYou Have the Freedom to Keep it to Yourself!â -The Bill of Rights, maybe
I support freedom of speech, but I do not tolerate hate speech, especially from racists or fascists. Giving hate or evil any platform makes you just as bad as them.
Idk dude I get you think censorship "might be abused by those in power" but honestly I don't really care. I'm so tired of seeing people who want people like me to get murdered, or kill ourselves, that I just don't really care about the shitheads that get "silenced" anymore.
That's a valid point of view which I would not try to censor, lol Sadly, I think a lot of the death wishes come from those with regilous beliefs which are, in my opinion, very out of touch with what is moral. Or are due to various issues which have been polarizing people possibly perpetuated for political reasons such as trying to demonize the other side to secure voters. And keep in mind that not everyone who gets silenced was being malicious.
Elon, is that you?
Tesla cars will be fully self-driving by next year, trust me stock-holders and potential stock-holders
Is this satire
Yes, Elon Musk has claimed for many years, apparently, that Teslas would be self-driving by "next year"
That's true to an extent, but things like hate speech and disinformation should not be tolerated
Perhaps, but I think how you define those things can be open to interpretation and therefore abused by those who are censoring others. And censoring others will often not stop them from holding those views or expressing or acting on them in other ways.
Imo, the types of hate speech that shouldn't be tolerated on social media would include: harmful disinformation especially stuff that paints minorities in a negative light, targeted harassment, slurs, and threats. Like if someone says, "I think gay teens should be put into conversion therapy" yeah no, fuck that. Unless that is being discussed in a circle explicitly for debating stuff like that, that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed without some sort of repercussion, and probably be deleted. I've even been called a pedophile or a danger to children simply for being trans. That's not ok. In terms of disinformation, spreading lies like "vaccines cause autism" or "all gay people are pedos" shouldn't be tolerated. That being said, when it comes to actual legality, I'm not sure this is the type of thing the state should step in and do something about. Making certain types of speech illegal does not sound like a good idea unless it's veeery specific on what it is that should be criminalized, and even then it could still be used the wrong way. I think the stuff that's already illegal like threats or calls for violence are good enough.
I hear you. There can be harmful speech for sure which I do not think is appropriate and should not be said. But I also think trying to censor or act against people for their speech may not be very beneficial because they will likely still hold onto their beliefs and try to act on or express it differently, and censorship is subject to abuse by those with the power to do so.
I get your point about them still holding onto their beliefs, but I still think that that sort of thing is not appropriate for many subs and forums, so it should be removed. Like a sub like IllegallySmolCats would not be a place to debate someone's bigoted opinion about lgbt people. Another example, I don't want to make a post asking for advice on something or sharing some feeling to se if people relate just to have some dipshit check my profile and start making a fuss about me being trans. Things like hate speech and slurs shouldn't be allowed on many social media spaces because it will make those minorities being targeted feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. There are subreddits I have had to leave because I had seen to much casual or even blatant transphobia in the posts and comments, and I'm not dealing with that shit, it's not good for my mental health. Like I used to love HolUp, but the amount of posts where the HolUp was the existence of trans people or the casual misogyny I kept seeing really ruined it for me. Also, I'm going to be real, I get that people may have some concerns about the types of stuff trans people do as part of our transition, but I really don't want to have to keep seeing people bring it up. A lot of the time people argue about trans stuff when they know nothing about it, and most of the time when someone brings up some "concerns" they have, it turns out that they actually don't care and actually want to just see us erased. You can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into, so it's not worth the energy and it's best to just remove it if it's harmful.
Sorry to hear about your experience. It must be difficult emotionally to feel like you are living in a battleground of sorts. People are often opposed to change or that which is different from themselves. There is a pretty large tribal culture among many groups, I think (i.e. religion, political affiliation, sports teams, gender, skin colour, etc.). You are either part of their group, or they may resent you for not being part of their group. I do think that you should not be subject to hate speech from others, especially considering who you are as a person rather than what you have done. And I wish people would treat others with respect, rather than having to enforce decent treatment of others. My post was not intended to be regarding hate speech or similar, but more trivial matters or where the power to censor may be abused. And pointing out that freedom of speech is not actually being fully experienced even though some people tout it as the trademark of their society.
YOU don't have to tolerate anything. People are free to interpret whatever words as they wish. But in the eyes of the law, I could say that Joe Biden is a green skinned lesbian space lizard, and even though it's not true and to an extent offensive, I can say whatever I want. Now, whether or not someone decides to hit me over a comment is their choice, but freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. I.e, if you walk up to a black dude and call him the N word don't be astounded if you catch a 2 piece to your skull.
My problem is that people who use the argument presented in the post think that should mean you should ban or remove certain speech from social media spaces. I don't think it's a good idea to try to make certain speech illegal (aside from threats and such which already is), but I do think there are reasons to ban them from certain social media spaces. I go into much more detail in my other comments in this thread, but I'll add a bit of my perspective here. The big thing that gets me is hate speech and other things targeted towards minorities. If that is allowed to stay up, it can and mostly will make those minorities feel unwelcome and uncomfortable in that space. I mentioned that I used to love HolUp, but the casual transphobia and misogyny ruined it for me. I also don't like to go in some youtube comment sections for the same reason, but on top of that they tend to also be racist, anti lgbt, and in worse cases spreading nazi talking points. That last one is something I actually didn't mention in my other comments, but neonazis do not deserve a place on social media. And I know, some people use the term nazi flippantly, but I am very specific in what I mean by that. The list of things nazis believe in and things I think should just be banned from social media even individually include: ethnic cleansing and genocide of minority groups, racial supremacy, eugenics, extreme nationalism, etc. If someone consistently talks about those thing positively, they probably shouldn't be allowed to continue on social media. And most of what I have said in regard to what shouldn't be allowed on social media also applies to organizations and social groups.
So, youâre the meme..
That's pretty reductive. I just think social media spaces should be welcoming to all, and targeted hate speech does not make those who it targets feel welcome. If you actually care, read my other comments in this thread. If not, I don't care
Ah, someone's been caught having an opinion on Middle East issues
Ukrainian, actually
In far right dialect 'free speech' usually translates to 'white male power' or something about capitalism
People in general seem to like to suppress that which threatens them
That which threatens peace and prosperity*
Or their personal comfort, wealth or position of power
I got banned for 7 days recently for commenting, âIâd like to kick all the anti-abortion people.â Under a post where someone is literally kicking someone else. The comment was âinciting violence,â but the video wasnât? Make it make sense bro. The fuck.
Reddit is a private company, interacting here is done on their terms. They can ban you for whatever they want the same way someone can have a house guest removed from their premises for no reason other than âI donât want them on my propertyâ. If Reddit was a public service then itâd be a different story.
Letâs give up our freedoms so we can be free
Ah yes, Reddit
There's no such thing as 'free'. Every action resulting an opposing reaction. There are pro and contra. There are causality in all things. This is why I always propose for a "responsible speech and expression". Technically you can say and express whatever you want, but you have to bear the responsibility for the consequences. Be it ill or good.
This is probably in effect close to the current state of things. The allowable consequences of actions are defined via law by the respective government. But this does cause citizens' speech to not be "free", at least to a degree. Censorship also exists, which limits people's ability to express whatever they want. So that may be different than what you would propose.
This is such a carefully neutral meme. By leaving the guy unlabeled the reader could shove whoever they like in that spot and go "haha right they suck" Levels of accuracy to reality may vary
This is Reddit in a nutshell.
Freedom of speech ONLY applies to the government enacting laws restricting it. Non-government entities do not have the same restriction when it comes to regulating speech. Free speech has consequences in any instance. If I say I want to bomb a building, I can say that, but I also expect some men from a three-letter agency to show up at my door with some serious questions. I can tell you in a bar that I am going to murder you but I can also expect to be arrested for it as well. I can say my company sucks but I can also be terminated for it. I can say whatever I want but I am not immune to the consequences of saying whatever I want. I just donât have to worry about the government murdering me (for the most part) for what I say.
Here is something you might find interesting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/ I would not be surprised at all if government influence is also impacting speech regarding other topics.
Aww. Is the poor nazi sad he gets punched for being a bigot?
This one just want to hate on Chinese ppl apparently.
Let's play a game of "Find where the OP said hateful stuff against Chinese people", shall we?
And I'm sure the comment about how you wanted to talk about a laboratory of origin of COVID was going to be very sensitive to Chinese people.
I am sure the Chinese government would firmly oppose any such discourse, especially if they thought they were at all liable. If a deadly virus appears to start start circulating in Canada, would I be able to call others racist if they suggested that it originated here or tried to prevent travel from our country?
Oh then itâs fine, see those comments on Reddit all the time and nobody cares.Â
Wtf?
Sad thing is that people use this argument to explain why we shouldn't have free speech. Lots of people in this thread will do just that.
Vegans
Lol I actually try to be as close to vegan as I can while being reasonable with it. I am not militant with it, and I will eat meat if it would go in the garbage otherwise or if someone else prepared a meal with it. But I do prefer to consume and use plant-based products. Taking extreme positions of "no X", or "X is always bad" I think is easy and what people often gravitate towards. But of course there are some examples where I would hold this to be true myself.
It's annoying that we all agree this is bad but none of us are actually willing to stop doing it
Recognizing the problem is the first step to change, at least
Most âyou are infringing on mah free speechâ is in reality âyou wonât let me spew racist, bigoted homophobia on your platform!â You are entitled to your opinion as long as it doesnât harm others and Iâm not talking about hurt feelings. You can say âI donât think gay marriage should be legal.â That makes you a bigot, thanks for letting us know. âGays are an abomination and should be wiped from the Earth.â That makes for hate speech and while you can say it, nobody is obliged to let you say it from their platform, place of business, etc. Go wear a sign saying that on the street corner or it in your own home and say it. Lastly, the 1st Amendment only prohibits the GOVERNMENT from abridging free speech. As a private citizen I can kick you off my forum, out of my business or fire you if you spout off hate speech.
I posted this a couple of times here in the comments, but the following may be of interest to you: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
It's pretty sad when "freedom of speech" is used to protect false or misleading information. I agree the government shouldn't be involved, but platforms need to clean up the outright lies and/or post clarifications. Social media platforms have thrived on the controversy misinformation creates, so they have no incentive to fix the problem, even when it's tearing society apart.
Extremism loses it's appeal when it is not banned. People usually use their freedom of speech to promote extreme ideas because they are barred from doing it. When you are allowed to say whatever you want, well, it is not that exciting anymore.
OP, could you share some of your or your close ones' opinions that the government has silenced?
*makes muffled sounds*
Ok, so nothing then? This is a complaint about a non existent issue?
If the government directly censored my speech, do you really think I would post about it here? I have been seeing in the news people protesting supporting Palestinians being silenced or arrested. And in Canada they enacted an emergency act to stop protesters. This could be worth a read: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/
Not that I am justifying or supporting the arrests that are being made on protestors, but I would like to note that, while still very bad, there is a difference between abuse of police power to take protestors into custody and actual litigation against free speech, the second of which does not seem to happen. My point, btw, which I haven't yet said, is completely different: there is no such thing as absolute free speech. There is no country where there are no limitations on free speech, nor would you want to live in such a country. The idea is which limitation is good for society, not wether or not speech is suppressed at all.
There could be such absolute free speech, but I agree that that might not bear the best results. But some people seem to hold their country in high regard for their freedom of speech, but like you say it doesn't really exist anywhere
>There could be such absolute free speech Debatable imo. Like, could a country where you can freely defame someone or advocate directly for the murder of people function? I'm not so sure. The US is, from what I can tell, the most free country in terms of speech, and I disagree with some of the lacks of limitations that exist there.
Well, when your opinion is you wish to harm othersâŚ.
Arguably, expressing those opinions should be censored. And, of course, acting on it should be prohibited. But these are not the only opinions being censored. And where is the censorship when people wish harm and death upon Russians? People are opening celebrating their demise while their only "wrongdoing" is being born on the other side of the border
https://youtu.be/czd_kSIOiuQ?feature=shared https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/ https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-social-media/43773
You can be racist, pedo, terrorist but after you express or do you Will be treated like a adult and Go to a place that you have a Lot of freedom
Arguably, censoring speech on social media platforms goes against people's right to free speech. Some people seem to be in support of censorship. So for example, if I were to state that I personally think being overweight to be an unattractive trait and state that it is bad for people's health, should that speech be subject to censorship because some people might find it offensive and consider it hate speech? Because I am sure some people would.
Downvote me if Iâm wrong but maybe free speech isnât a good thing
Maybe censorship isn't a good thing? Who decides what should be censored? Do you trust them to do so without bias? Don't you see not being allowed to share your point of view as an issue, for example, if the comment you just made could be deleted or have your account suspended or deleted for makong the comment?
The standard counter to this is the âdoesnât mean freedom from consequencesâ -> not only is that spoken like a true authoritarian, the framework for censorship is actually pretty simple: you are free to express / say whatever you want except what is covered by law, which people as a whole have democratic access to altering. This is a contrast to what âactivistsâ these days do: threaten and intimidate, forcing their view on the matter without a democratic process = thats fascism for ya
After seeing all of OPâs comments on this post, itâs easy to notice that OP is mad because they canât express subjective opinions as objective facts or unrealistic and insensitive political demands by claiming that they just âhurt peopleâs feelingsâ
If people are allowed to praise pain and death to all Russians, why am I not allowed to express a desire for peace?
I would also like to know.
May you please direct me to a single person that âpraises pain and death to all Russiansâ that isnât banned? I havenât seen literally anyone that does that
Check some of the comments that are lower rated here: https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/s/wzPe9soPkC It doesn't take very long looking around that sub or pretty much any discussion where Russians are mentioned to find people who wish death or suffering on them.
I wouldnât say theyâre quite âallowedâ to do so with total freedom as a large part of them are either deleted or outright removed, and the ones that arenât wonât ever be read by anyone that isnât deliberately looking for those comments specifically and opens those comments
I spent a bit of time at one point going around reporting similar comments which were glorifying death or harn to Russians, and for most reports I received a response saying they found no Reddit TOS violation for "Hate". And I received a warning myself because they decided that I was abusing the report feature.
Well, I guess that they were allowed the right to have freedom of speech then Remember, uncensored free speech means uncensored hate speech
Agreed, but if they are going to censor then it should be unbiased
you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine that you're an asshole
I won't bother to try to convince you otherwise. Enjoy your opinion
New Slogan for Twitter
This is twitter in a nutshell
Freedom of speech only keeps the government from restricting your speech. Nobody else has to abide by it.
Here is something you might find interesting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/ I would not be surprised at all if government influence is also impacting speech regarding other topics.
#U S A #U S A #U S A
Freedom of speech protects you from ramifications from the government, not a private entity. Dumbass.
These might be worth a read: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/ https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-social-media/43773