If Free-Speech falls, we're in trouble

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They can probably get solid jobs in North Korea.

Edward Dmytryk, director, came back from his exile in England. Ratted out his commie buddies before congress, went on to direct many more films and died a ripe old age in Los Angeles.

[Gustoo]

Good for him

[magnetaress]

I was curious. Investigated. Reported back and shared my findings. Incase anyone else was.. Not trying to be a smart ass. I thought your North Korea comment was smart.

All this happened in the 40s. And isn't current events.

It was interesting though.

[Gustoo]

My comment sounded dismissive and sarcastic "OHHH GOOOD FOR YOUUUU!!!"

But really good for him, having another life after exile, dying old. I wonder if he thought free speech was on its way out too?

All this shit does a good job of keeping people from enjoying the awesome world they have around them.

[Swish]

Honestly I don't know why Parler doesn't just find some hosting in a country that doesn't care who says what.

The irony for some would be there, but there's so many legal workarounds these days.

[budz2112]

They found something like that swish, they found a russian host, but its not because they support free speech, its because they support the stuff on parlers sight. All so obvious at this point.

[Jibartik]

Hey if we're going to have the goverment moderate media, lets outlaw fox news while were at it lol

I cant believe libertarians are trying to use federal goverment to control a free market yet here we are lol

[Gravydoo II]

cause they know they are gonna plan terrorist attacks..

[cs616]

Free speech and the first amendment are not the same thing. The first amendment limits the US government's ability to curtail free speech, but the concept of free speech dates back at least 2500 years to the Greeks, and possibly earlier. Conflating the two is lazy, disingenuous, and at least recently, usually due to political partisanship.

As for companies censoring individuals on their platforms, I'm personally opposed to it, but there is nothing illegal about it. That said, I don't think companies should be allow to have it both ways. If they're a free and open platform where they do not control the content, then I think they should remain not liable for that content. However, if they choose to exercise editorial authority, they should be liable for the content on their platform. I think their smartest move would be for them to voluntarily to adhere to first amendment principles as it would be the most simple way to remain neutral both legally and socially, but ultimately that is their decision.

I do think this is going to be bad for these companies in the long run. Remaining neutral and simply providing a service alienates the fewest amount of potential customers, and even if it only alienates a minority, that still opens up the opportunity for competition or innovation to eat into their market share by catering to that minority.

Ultimately, I really don't care about the social media platforms since they're a dime a dozen and there should/will be better things that come along. Despite never using Parler, I think Amazon and Apple kicking them off their platforms sets a far more dangerous precedent than twitter or facebook censoring a few people since the internet practically runs on AWS and would be much harder to replace. Hopefully these developments will lead to the innovation of new, more robust methods of communication that don't have gate keepers though.

And before anyone assumes anything about my politics, I think Trump and Biden are both garbage, and the Capitol protestors/riots/insurrectionist were a bunch of morons. Our entire political system caters to wealthy special interests and almost all politicians are corporate sycophants. I'm not on your team, or their team, or any team. The whole system is corrupt and only gives the illusion that your opinion matters.

[Jibartik]

In America, the bill of rights only protects you from the goverment infringing on your right to say whatever you want.

So having private entities or companies be forced to publish stuff they dont want to, by the government, is the only idea on the table that is infringing on free speech.