| It's still a controversial topic in today's day and age where any platform for discussion is actually owned by a company. It's an age where anything we say can be edited and deleted. It seems that some people no longer think that online discourse is subject to the first amendment. But to some, myself included, this seems counterintuitive. So it's a very open ended question - what does freedom of speech mean in today's day and age? |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| An American buzzword that is useless because it is always "with limits" and any freedom "with limits" is no freedom at all — that is a contradictio in terminis. The problem of limitless freedom of speech is that it would also have to include libel, death threats, and leaking of personal information which is also speech; that is why I think it's useless as a concept. In the Netherlands there exists no "freedom of speech" what exists is "freedom of expression of opinion" — that's a significant difference and I do believe that that should and can be sans any limits, at least from governmental prosecution and probably above that. I also believe there should be protections that take away the privilege of employers to fire any employer for what opinion he might have expressed outside of his capacity as an employer. "freedom of speech" is not a good thing to limitlessly and just an empty buzzword but "freedom of opinion" can be limitless: the important thing is that death threats, libel, leaking of personal information, production of child pornography &c. are not "opinions" though they are speech. |
 It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| From my understanding, Freedom of speech should be more like "You have the freedom to speech any word you want but you should take responsibilities for what you said", So basically freedom of speech not equal to no limits speech. |
| This is going to depend on what country you're in. In the United States, freedom of speech protects various forms of expression from censorship or reprisal from the government. It also comes with the right to assemble and gather for peaceful and lawful purposes and to practice whatever religion you choose. However, nothing prevents others from judging/criticizing you or punishing you for what you say. Free speech is not a universal ticket to say whatever it is you want any time you want. You can be kicked out of schools, businesses, clubs, websites or any place else based on things you say. Also, the government has placed exceptions on free speech to keep things in check. Things like libel, obscenity, fraud, criminal conspiracy, etc. |
superboyprime98 said: If said "responsibility" includes "the government's criminal sanctions" then that's a fine semantics wrangling to say there is no freedom of speech.From my understanding, Freedom of speech should be more like "You have the freedom to speech any word you want but you should take responsibilities for what you said", So basically freedom of speech not equal to no limits speech. But so-called "human rights" have always been kept alive not by spirit nor practice but by semantics wranglings of taking them away and by very convoluted semantics definitions act like they still exist. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: You can go around that issue with the terminology of "freedom of speech" with the fact that this 'freedom' is being exercised and moderated through a medium; a government. This government follows a set of laws, where these laws are inspired from? Well, as much as you hate the word, morals. The fact that the government mediates what goes in and out of the medium that is where the eccentric yet unknowingly well-known "freedom of speech" dwells, then it is not just freedom of speech in the abstract sense, it is "freedom of speech, with accordance to the set of laws and morals that either allow or deny such statements".An American buzzword that is useless because it is always "with limits" and any freedom "with limits" is no freedom at all — that is a contradictio in terminis. The problem of limitless freedom of speech is that it would also have to include libel, death threats, and leaking of personal information which is also speech; that is why I think it's useless as a concept. In the Netherlands there exists no "freedom of speech" what exists is "freedom of expression of opinion" — that's a significant difference and I do believe that that should and can be sans any limits, at least from governmental prosecution and probably above that. I also believe there should be protections that take away the privilege of employers to fire any employer for what opinion he might have expressed outside of his capacity as an employer. "freedom of speech" is not a good thing to limitlessly and just an empty buzzword but "freedom of opinion" can be limitless: the important thing is that death threats, libel, leaking of personal information, production of child pornography &c. are not "opinions" though they are speech. |
Yarub said: A freedom that is moderated is — as said — no freedom at all.Sphinxter said: You can go around that issue with the terminology of "freedom of speech" with the fact that this 'freedom' is being exercised and moderated through a medium; a government. This government follows a set of laws, where these laws are inspired from? Well, as much as you hate the word, morals. The fact that the government mediates what goes in and out of the medium that is where the eccentric yet unknowingly well-known "freedom of speech" dwells, then it is not just freedom of speech in the abstract sense, it is "freedom of speech, with accordance to the set of laws and morals that either allow or deny such statements".An American buzzword that is useless because it is always "with limits" and any freedom "with limits" is no freedom at all — that is a contradictio in terminis. The problem of limitless freedom of speech is that it would also have to include libel, death threats, and leaking of personal information which is also speech; that is why I think it's useless as a concept. In the Netherlands there exists no "freedom of speech" what exists is "freedom of expression of opinion" — that's a significant difference and I do believe that that should and can be sans any limits, at least from governmental prosecution and probably above that. I also believe there should be protections that take away the privilege of employers to fire any employer for what opinion he might have expressed outside of his capacity as an employer. "freedom of speech" is not a good thing to limitlessly and just an empty buzzword but "freedom of opinion" can be limitless: the important thing is that death threats, libel, leaking of personal information, production of child pornography &c. are not "opinions" though they are speech. If one accept that "freedom with limits" crap then one has the freedom to do everything one can always say one has "freedom with limits". At this point it becomes useless: North Korea has freedom of speech as well then. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| The people who care most about freedom of speech are the ones who hold the unpopular opinions. The main reason people advocate to hear something they dislike is fear that they may get silenced one day. Once an idea becomes universally popular the freedom to express the opposite becomes limited, socially or eventually legally. That's what those with the popular idea will promote, and that's just what happens when an idea has that level of support. Once we all agree on everything we'll do some end of evangelion type of thing and freedom of speech will die. |
 I can see you |
Xstasy said: This is not the first I see you stick the word "troll" on whatever you disagree with.terminated-soul said: "Freedom of speech/writing" is the made-up cliche term for brain-dead idiots, there is no such thing and there will not be one (at least not in our lifetime). I'm wondering how many people are going to fall for this obvious bait. When your going to try troll at least don't make it this obvious. Regardless it's not wrong — like most "human rights" they exist only on paper; written down but not followed through upon by the statesman that wishes to tell his reflexion in the mirror that he he is enlightened. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
BlakexEkalb said: And that is just semantics wrangling trying to keep the word "freedom" and redefining it until it means what one wants it to mean."There are limits to "freedom of speech'", who are the geniuses in the chat you blew my mind. Having a freedom to do anything can be taken advantage of, as humans are selfish and we always use it for our own benefits. As such, things such as the "Imminent Lawless Action Test" which can prevent people from tweeting stupid things like "Go kill Donald Trump". However, people are still able to say "Donald Trump needs to die" as they are not directly telling people to do it. So yes, Freedom of Speech is a good thing that needs to be regulated to an extent. Then just have the balls to say "freedom of speech is bad; I don't believe in freedom speech; a man should not have the freedom to say what he wants." That is what I said; I believe not in "freedom of speech"; I however do believe in "freedom of expression of opinion". |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| I greatly value freedom of speech. I think anything should be allowed to be said as long as it is not a call to violence or slander. It is the ability to critic points and engage in arguements as well as expressing one`s views. |
 |
| For the most part sure you can say what you want but again people who own platforms that they PAY for to keep. Shouldnt have to host ideals they dont support. Freedom of speech shouldn't equate freedom from responsibility. People shouldnt be lynched by people or the government for saying things but people also should have the right to not have people whose opinions they disagree with on there property. If your going to call your boss an asshole he should be allowed to fire you. If your going to generally be an ass on someone elses platform they should have the right to kick you off it. You cant control who you are but you damn well can control what you say outside your private life. do you trample on one freedom to have another freedom? Dont forget freedom of association is part of freedom of speech. This is one of those rare moment where I am going to actualy have to agree with @Sphinxter |
GrimAtramentJul 20, 2019 4:00 PM
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
Xstasy said: I Big social media giants that have a monopolies shouldn't be allowed to censor and deplatform people because of their political views, ideally their should be some regulation in place that prevent this behaviour. I don't like where things are heading in the future with all this censorship and power that these corporations wild. Just take look at the terrifying Chinese social surveillance credit system(someone was a fan of psycho pass there) that may become our reality if things don't change. It seems to me that those people in power mistaken 1984 by George Orwell as a manual and not as a cautionary tale. China's Dystopian Social Credit system Yeah, I get the feeling that some of the social media giants don't handle it too well and have been banning people unfairly. Even someone like Alex Jones, who I don't agree with. I think it was unfair to ban him from Facebook hahah. MasterGlyth said: The people who care most about freedom of speech are the ones who hold the unpopular opinions. The main reason people advocate to hear something they dislike is fear that they may get silenced one day. Once an idea becomes universally popular the freedom to express the opposite becomes limited, socially or eventually legally. That's what those with the popular idea will promote, and that's just what happens when an idea has that level of support. Once we all agree on everything we'll do some end of evangelion type of thing and freedom of speech will die. Socially is one thing but the amendments really go so far as to say that your mere opinion can't land you in jail or worse. This isn't a monarchy where the king's whim can remove your very life. I realize I'm only speaking about America here but it is my best example. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| @Gan_water that doesn't mean we dont have thoose loons that want america to be a monarchy when ever a president who they like is in power. ¬_¬ (and I'm looking at both sides of the political spectrum on this one.) |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
| I can't speak for the world, but here in the States, Freedom of Speech is protection from the government, not the people. You're allowed to say whatever you want (outside of promoting violence/and or panic), but that doesn't mean you're free of consequence. Private companies can remove you from their platforms, your employers can fire you, and people can think you're a piece of shit and not want to associate with you. That's it. There's nothing else it can mean. |
| To quote Richard Spencer, "When we say we “support free speech,” we are really saying that we support dissident thought and the people actively challenging the hegemonic system—its political and military structures and its dominant morality and civic religion." Freedom of speech was originally conceived by an elite group of colonists in order to express grievances as well as critiques against the Crown. Its primary function is to ensure that power is not abusively wielded against those who criticize it. It is effectively a countermeasure against the notion that might is right. For me personally, it's also important that freedom of speech also extend to artistic expression, which I find absolutely tantamount in the flourishing of a civilization. A stagnant culture leads to a stagnant society. |
 |
hazarddex said: @Gan_water that doesn't mean we dont have thoose loons that want america to be a monarchy when ever a president who they like is in power. ¬_¬ (and I'm looking at both sides of the political spectrum on this one.) Yeah, that was what freakd me out about the Bushes hahah. And why people were obviously scared about H Clinton (who I supported at the time). No, it's best if we have political diversity... |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| there is not such thing as total/absolute freedom of speech like the right wing champions they just weaponize that belief in order to become the next establishment and eventually limit the free speech of the left wing more (and im almost sure that is whats gonna happen) also related to freedom is rights im thinking now its like a zero-sum game "you gain some others lose some" like with the rignt wing belief that if you give more rights to feminists and SJWs then they will lose more rights in return example is censorship of video games or anime |
| Freedom of speech is my ability to be a misanthrope and only have to deal with de facto repercussions for being a whiny asshole and not de jure ones |
 |
Nithirel said: I can't speak for the world, but here in the States, Freedom of Speech is protection from the government, not the people. You're allowed to say whatever you want (outside of promoting violence/and or panic), but that doesn't mean you're free of consequence. Private companies can remove you from their platforms, your employers can fire you, and people can think you're a piece of shit and not want to associate with you. That's it. There's nothing else it can mean. And thats what allways bugs me with these "but muh free speech." They dont want "freedom of speech." They want freedom from conequences which is just ludicrous. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
| Extremely important human right for countless reasons, I could spend all day listing them off. But the gist of it all is that no matter who you are no matter what you say (no matter how awful or great you are or what you're saying is); you have the right to say it. And not only should the government not be able to suppress your right to freedom of speech, but private companies shouldn't be able to suppress it either (like what these social media companies are doing). I'm very big on the first amendment it, is so crucially important to society. Yet, that being said, I think we also need MUCH stronger defamation laws and endangerment laws. It is ridiculously hard to sue someone for abusing their freedom of speech and if you abuse your freedom of speech to knowingly spread lies about somebody or rallying people to hurt somebody; you deserve to get the shit sued out of you either for a ton of money or resulting in you getting jail time. Abusing your freedom of speech to intentionally and significantly hurt others with nothing but malicious intent is disgusting and it's a fucking joke how impossibly hard it is right now to sue someone for this shit. Also, if we made it easier, rather than fascistly banning people off their platforms, instead social media companies could sue to rightfully remove hateful figures off their platforms (like say the whole Alex Jones thing, obviously he's a piece of crap but they should have had to prove the conspiracy theories he was spreading were causing tangible harm which they were but still it should be proven). |
| Not so much into freedom of speech as I am into freedom from censorship, specifically government censorship, whether such is mandated, coerced or bribed. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
Bayek said: For me personally, it's also important that freedom of speech also extend to artistic expression, which I find absolutely tantamount in the flourishing of a civilization. A stagnant culture leads to a stagnant society. This is pretty important especially when you have folks like the UN wanting to ban art. |
 |
| I guess it means you can say whatever you want, as long as you're aware the things you say can have repercussions for you. Doesn't mean you can't say it--just you own some part of the consequence it may produce. Users in their posts called it limitation, but its not really a limit you can't go beyond. For those users, I guess that would mean their freedom of speech means you can say things and not be attached to the words once they left you. Just as fine. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
One day closer to Psycho Pass, I like China. |
| Speak out what is on your mind without having to hold yourself back for some stupid shit. Is what it should be. |
 |
| Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And hate speech isn't free speech. I agree that you should be able to criticize government but if you go around calling for violence against certain group of people that is not free speech any more. Private companies have a right to decide if they want certain type of content to be associated with their brand. |
  Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
AnimeFeminist said: Of course hate speech is still free speech.Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And hate speech isn't free speech. I agree that you should be able to criticize government but if you go around calling for violence against certain group of people that is not free speech any more. Private companies have a right to decide if they want certain type of content to be associated with their brand. If you believe this then just have the balls — as I have — to just say "I'm against freedom of speech" instead of clinging emotionally to a word. I'm against freedom of speech because I think not that libel, slander, death threats, leaking personal information, leaking classified information, violating an n.d.a. and what-not should necessarily be legal but all of that is still speech and in a system with actual free speech it would be legal. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Zvera said: I support the idea of making this a legal category; the distinction between platform and publisher.A friend once told me that what we usually consider platforms are actually publishers. Platforms host any and all opinions without policing and redacting them. Without biased promotion mechanisms or anything. Theoretically you could openly discuss about the benefits of exterminating some group of people and not get shut down by the host. If you can get banned for criticizing immigration and content that caters to the right wing party gets removed while left wing content is promoted you are not on a platform. If you're a publisher you become responsible for the content and you become responsible for copyright infringement and other illegal content and are required to quickly remove it. You may become a "platform" instead and shift responsibility to the user but then you must actually practice zero moderation and not censor. The logic is that if you censor at all you clearly censored this illegal content not and let it through so you take responsibility by censoring other content. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
AnimeFeminist said: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And hate speech isn't free speech. I agree that you should be able to criticize government but if you go around calling for violence against certain group of people that is not free speech any more. Private companies have a right to decide if they want certain type of content to be associated with their brand. A true authoritarian right here. There is no such thing as hate speech. Hate speech is nothing but a vague term that allows the ones with power to use it to censor the words of those they disagree with, and thankfully at least the US courts saw as much and ruled it. No such thing in what is slowly proved to be a new European dictatorship unfortunately. As George Orwell said "If liberty means anything at all, it means telling others things they do not want to hear". Even Ron Paul got it when he said "we don't have the first amendment to talk about the weather. We have it so we can freely talk about controversial things" You can take the most ruthless dictator and he will be perfectly fine with you talking as long as you say things he likes hearing. What you need freedom of speech for is when you say things he doesn't like hearing. And guess what a dictator will call such things? "Hate speech" of course. As about direct calls for violence, that is already covered under law. You don't need to create "hate speech" laws for that. It is sad that people like you grew with no important basic principles like "I may hate what you say but i will defend to death your right to say it." And "Do not do to others what you don't like them doing do you." People like you are exactly what Winston Churchill described with this phrase: "Some people's ides of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage". And people like that only drive our world to a darker place. One can only hope that there is some sense of principle inside you that may help you do understand the horror of your ways. Btw private companies can censor all they like, but they should have no right to call themselves as platform or have any right that involves being one. They are publishers then and they must face the consequences of their own agenda and opinions. |
MonadJul 21, 2019 11:02 AM
AnimeFeminist said: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And hate speech isn't free speech. I agree that you should be able to criticize government but if you go around calling for violence against certain group of people that is not free speech any more. Private companies have a right to decide if they want certain type of content to be associated with their brand. What constitutes hate speech is entirely subjective. I think it's a problem in society too, nobody likes haters... But who is to say when it's good natured and when it isn't? Literally banning or silencing certain types of speech does not make the energy which caused it go away. It only subverts it. In today's society it's alienation of individuals (of all groups) which is the biggest issue and this is why I think it's best to let people have it out rather than shut it down in the interest of protection. It's not good for people's spirits if we have to be on our tip toes around each other, watching what we say all the time. and btw sorry for gang banging you with all the other replies haah you don't have to respond to this |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Gan_water said: AnimeFeminist said: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And hate speech isn't free speech. I agree that you should be able to criticize government but if you go around calling for violence against certain group of people that is not free speech any more. Private companies have a right to decide if they want certain type of content to be associated with their brand. What constitutes hate speech is entirely subjective. I think it's a problem in society too, nobody likes haters... But who is to say when it's good natured and when it isn't? Literally banning or silencing certain types of speech does not make the energy which caused it go away. It only subverts it. In today's society it's alienation of individuals (of all groups) which is the biggest issue and this is why I think it's best to let people have it out rather than shut it down in the interest of protection. It's not good for people's spirits if we have to be on our tip toes around each other, watching what we say all the time. and btw sorry for gang banging you with all the other replies haah you don't have to respond to this I don't think it even matter if it is in good nature or bad. Even if it is in what you call in bad nature it should be free to be expressed. Because when you have true free speech when something like that is expressed then also the criticisms and rebuttal will be expressed accordingly. "Bad ideas shouldn't be hidden. They should be freely expressed so everyone can see how stupid they are threw criticism". |
MonadJul 21, 2019 11:17 AM
Monad said: Gan_water said: What constitutes hate speech is entirely subjective. I think it's a problem in society too, nobody likes haters... But who is to say when it's good natured and when it isn't? Literally banning or silencing certain types of speech does not make the energy which caused it go away. It only subverts it. In today's society it's alienation of individuals (of all groups) which is the biggest issue and this is why I think it's best to let people have it out rather than shut it down in the interest of protection. It's not good for people's spirits if we have to be on our tip toes around each other, watching what we say all the time. and btw sorry for gang banging you with all the other replies haah you don't have to respond to this I don't thing it even matter if it is in good nature or bad. Even if it is in what you call in bad nature it should be free to be expressed. Because when you have true free speech when something like that is expressed then also the criticisms and rebuttal will be expressed accordingly. "Bad ideas shouldn't be hidden. They should be freely expressed so everyone can see how stupid they are threw criticism". Well maybe I'm defending myself here a bit as well, but my point is that, exactly, whether it's good or bad isn't supposed to matter. What does matter is being allowed to speak out yourself. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| the problem today is technology like the internet makes freedom of speech somewhat abusive (fake news, political trolling, etc) in the past when there is no internet then TV and radio and newspapers are like the only vocal speeches that people usually read but today? everybody have vocal speeches lol |
deg said: the problem today is technology like the internet makes freedom of speech somewhat abusive (fake news, political trolling, etc) in the past when there is no internet then TV and radio and newspapers are like the only vocal speeches that people usually read but today? everybody have vocal speeches lol That is simply saying that free speech is now an issue for some because those controlling the narrative of ideas and speech have a harder time doing so. So the controllers and those they still control now have a problem because there is more true free speech. |
Monad said: deg said: the problem today is technology like the internet makes freedom of speech somewhat abusive (fake news, political trolling, etc) in the past when there is no internet then TV and radio and newspapers are like the only vocal speeches that people usually read but today? everybody have vocal speeches lol That is simply saying that free speech is now an issue for some because those controlling the narrative of ideas and speech have a harder time doing so. So the controllers and those they still control now have a problem because there is more true free speech. im not sure what do you mean who is in control but judging from your posts around here im sure you think its the left wing establishment due to the fact they embrace globalization for more of that sweet capitalism profit but the right wing is winning imo they are good at using memes for example as political tool and as they say lies spread faster than facts so fake news that they usually spread has more wider reach the right wing will become the next establishment (and then high chance they will limit the free speech of the left wing) |
Gan_water said: Whos to say when its good natured and not--If it harms a person that is described by the speech? Curious why hate speech (I'm considering this type of 'speech' to differ from country to country) is entirely subjective when meanings are placed in language expressing subjective thoughts, or why something subjective in this case does not become objectively created in other instances. Wouldn't it be a somewhat/most of time instead of entirely?What constitutes hate speech is entirely subjective. I think it's a problem in society too, nobody likes haters... But who is to say when it's good natured and when it isn't? |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| Free speech is that thing that people think allows them to say racial slurs without any form of negative social consequences right? |
 |
deg said: Monad said: That is simply saying that free speech is now an issue for some because those controlling the narrative of ideas and speech have a harder time doing so. So the controllers and those they still control now have a problem because there is more true free speech. im not sure what do you mean who is in control but judging from your posts around here im sure you think its the left wing establishment due to the fact they embrace globalization for more of that sweet capitalism profit but the right wing is winning imo they are good at using memes for example as political tool and as they say lies spread faster than facts so fake news that they usually spread has more wider reach the right wing will become the next establishment (and then high chance they will limit the free speech of the left wing) When you only have newspapers and major publishers and big TV stations(usually all of this are controlled by a few corporations numbered in one hand) being able to transmit their ideas and words and opinions to everyone else while citizens do not have platforms to do as such then obviously those are what i called in control of the narrative. That is what we used to have. The internet changed that, it gave everyone the ability to transmit thoughts and ideas and even criticise those that were the major transmitters until now and point the flaws in their logic, call them out on possible deception and lies or show alternative ways of seeing things. That is a blessing not a problem. Finally more free speech and dialogue and ability of expression given to everyone. But those with the old power still have the financial cloud they gained threw the old years and they use it against this new free speech that takes away from their control and power. That is why almost all publications have shut down comment sections(we don't want those pesky people actually pointing out the flaws of our article and make the sheep doubt what we tell them) and are pushing for censoring on internet platforms etc. To me that is the basic picture of it, not necessary left of right even if those old media are right now using left politics. If they had used right politics it wouldn't change the fundamental image though. "but the right wing is winning imo they are good at using memes for example as political tool and as they say lies spread faster than facts so fake news that they usually spread has more wider reach" By this quote should i assume that you position yourself politically a lot more than i ever did? Because by saying this it means you basically decided that the ones making the memes(the right) are the liars. So do you see the right as liars and wrong simply because they are the right, or you simply think that anyone making memes and internet posts instead of owning a big newspaper or TV station etc is immediately less reliable and that big media companies are more honest just because they are big media companies? |
MonadJul 21, 2019 12:20 PM
| @Monad mainstream news media is being demonize but even if they published "fake news" sometimes its not as often or not as damaging as what actual fake news usually circulates and TV, radio, newspapers are subject to government regulations (so the government can revoke their license for repeated/damaging fake news for example) and most of this mainstream news media on the internet are part of that |
deg said: @Monad mainstream news media is being demonize but even if they published "fake news" sometimes its not as often or not as damaging as what actual fake news usually circulates Oh boy! Again another statement where you arbitrarily decide on who says lies or not and state it as though is fact simply because you believe it. AGAIN am asking you since you refused to answer. Since you clearly decided by your statements that the big media corporations are the truthful ones instead of their critics and opposing opinions of people on the internet, i want to know why you see it as such. Simply because you see big media companies as superior in morals and standards than common folk just by their stature, OR because you politically agree with their narrative. Which is it? |
deg said: In almost all jurisdictions there is no legal requirement of veracity beyond slander and libel to news outlet; they can lie as long as they harm not directly the reputation of a legal person.@Monad mainstream news media is being demonize but even if they published "fake news" sometimes its not as often or not as damaging as what actual fake news usually circulates and TV, radio, newspapers are subject to government regulations (so the government can revoke their license for repeated/damaging fake news for example) and most of this mainstream news media on the internet are part of that This is probably the lesser of the two evils of allowing the government to dictate what is true but even that happens. The U.S. government seems quite content to let a lot of blatant lies in news outlets go unchallenged because of free speech and I too think it is not their place to decide that but their reaction to Rind et al. was extremely concerning — a government passing a law that declares a peer-reviewed academic result to be "false". The research certainly had its problems like anything in psychology which is a very soft science of course but nothing out of the ordinary for peer-reviewed sociological papers. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
68 |
by -Jahra
»»
25 seconds ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - Apr 25 |
21 |
by rohan121
»»
53 minutes ago |
|
» The level of NoLifer / NEET / Hiki you are?IpreferEcchi - Apr 22 |
31 |
by cody
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - Apr 19 |
30 |
by rohan121
»»
3 hours ago |
|
Poll: » What is your average step count? [Poll] Do you think that you should take more steps?Miscanthus - Today |
16 |
by traed
»»
4 hours ago |