It is absolutely a progressive position to not want Government fascism in business.

Having government dictate speech to corporations would be a disaster.

I had this debate with many right derps in the BFI who argued the position you are trying to make here which is more control of speech is somehow a 'free speech', and I shamed them on how dumb that was.

No corporation can limit any persons speech. They can only say, as this forum does, if you say certain things you will not be allowed to say them here. Go some place else.

Do you think if 2+2 will not allow StormFront like speech they are restricting speech?

Do you actually know what that means?

As a conservative you clearly think that gov't should be regulating speech in the name of free speech.

Weird that.

Most of that is ok but progressives do want government to dictate some speech to corporations in some circumstances. When it's considered sufficiently powerful then the right to reasonable participation can become like the right to be conected to utilities. There can also be cases where a right to reply (a natural right for most people) is given some legal status, balance in politcal campaigns etc.

More commonly it's dictating that content is restricted. Hate speech laws, misinformation on important issues, false advertising etc are definitely the business of government to many progressives.

I would amend, as you are correct.

There are some on the extreme left that would happily use the force of law to dictate speech.

But that is now a centrist Republican position to dictate both speech and business policy such as terms of service.

And people like Luckbox follow into it to out of pure naivety. Not understanding what they support. They are just ignorant.


This would be a massive intervention by gov't to step in and say to businesses like 2+2 or FB you must allow StormFront like speech, any and all speech.

Similar to like how in the bFI they tried to label Ron DeSantis trying to dictate to all businesses their terms of service, as the Freedom position and individual businesses deciding their TOS they called fascist, if it precluded an anti vaxxer getting in.

it is pure gaslighting.

People can say what they want and the 1st Amendment rightly protects that. But free speech and free association means others do not have to associate with you or platform that speech.

I wouldn't call it extreme left. It's more like the the standard position among the left, centre and even conservatvies in Europe. And we also have something to say about unfettered business policy and terms of service.

As you then suggest, totally free markets is a very right wing position and they may well have a coherence problem. I dont know what luckbox's position is. He can answer for himself if he wants.

I dont want a written usa style consitution but if we have one in the uk then I'd put in the right to access vital technology (including particpatation in social media*) and take out the 2nd. Plus many other things like the right to vote.


*which in no way means not being bound by hate speeech laws and other legal/patform constraints

Conservatives--I should be able to say whatever I want at your private biz. Also, our private club can restrict whoever we want from being members. Because freespeech and all that jazz

I don't know about which country some of you live in, there may be a history of gas chambers and concentration camps over there, but here in the U.S.A. we have a long history of first amendment right to self expression and to criticize the government. Not every immigrant will gel with this ideology, depending on where they come from. What you are witnessing is an incompetent, globalist economic and political elite being challenged because they are unqualified to manage real crises, they respond in erratic and totalitarian ways, desperately clinging onto power and means of production. When they are criticized, they respond with censorship, lockdowns, and authoritarianism.

They will be defeated and sent into the netherwold, at all costs. The great reaction is coming.

I want them to own all the national parks too.

And Social Security and we need to go back to the good old days where they could kick you off health insurance when you got sick.

All this communism is making us weak. We need to but the poor in cold water flats like in the good old days.

Damn Obama.

The best one is money=speech.

And we won't update voting laws to make the process more democratic. Land of the stupid home of the sheep. lol

I'm not with you on the National Parks, I ****ing love those.

you really think free speech is in danger in the US ?

Of course it is.

At least, it is when you define "free speech" as forcing companies to provide a platform for whatever nonsense anyone wants to post.

Truth.

I can't tell if you're a fascist or a commie but either way, we don't need your kind around here, sonny. Get out.

Private business should be allowed to do as they please as long as its legal or no gray area loophole. the smaller the business, the more leeway they should possibly get.

I just dont know how big a business has to be before it starts affecting the bigger masses and needs "looked at" like if disney took over every single media company and absorbed every single theatre etc, a trust bust would have to be in order from/in my eyes.

Correct.

But you have NEVER had that within private companies.

You have never been able to force 60 Minutes, or CNN or FB to provide you a platform for your speech.
You can stand on the street corner, you can stand at the Governors office and you can say what you want and that is protected by the 1st. And what was also protected was no private individual or business had to deal with you.


But what is new is this attempt by Republicans to end the 1st Amendment and force others to deal with you and platform your speech.

If 2+2 says we want to go back to being a poker forum only with no other chat and Luckbox says 'that is anti 1st Amendment. I want to discuss Alien CT's' and he believes that position is correct then he is not very smart. If a new Huffington Post like Forum for chat on the left starts up and they specifically say they are excluding Right leaning talk, they are allowed to have a TOS that says that.

Gov't coming in and saying 'no, here is your TOS as dictated by us' would be a big step in the direction of facsicm.

Needless to say, there are limitations under the antitrust laws about what a single firm, or a group of firms, can do to acquire or maintain a dominant market position.

Again, the First Amendment doesn't protect Twitter's right to deplatform problem users. It would be more correct to say that the First Amendment does not protect problem users from deplatforming.

If Congress passed some sort of Bizarro-world version of the fairness doctrine -- for example, a statute that stated, "On matters of public importance, it shall be impermissible for any social media company to deplatform a user on the ground that the user is promoting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories--I don't think it would be a problem under the FA.

I think people are really confusing two topics that have come together. Twitter, FB, & Google have been afforded certain immunity under section 230 because their users are generating content, which cannot be controlled.

The new CEO of Twitter is saying he's very in favor of more restrictions about what his users can and cannot say. This is a perfectly reasonable position for a private company. However, if Twitter is going to edit content (even more than they already have), they should be treated as a publisher and their immunity should be rescinded.

Considering how much editorializing they already do, they should probably have lost their section 230 immunity already.

What are you defining as 'editing content'?

Are you saying if a 2+2 mod deletes a post here for breaking their rules that is 'editing content'?

You are opining on how you think Section 230 should work. But I don't the case law supports your assertion that Twitter will be treated as publisher if it deplatforms somewhat more aggressively.

As always, these things depend in part of which party controls the ability to modify Section 230 (i.e., which party controls Congress).

Trump's blunderbuss attack on Section 230 was always doomed to fail.

I'm not sure how to respond to this since it doesn't seem at all germane to my point.

But do you trust billionaires to be the arbiters of truth?

Not at all, I can't remember Bezos posting a youtoob with "THE SHOCKING TRUTH" in the thumbnail.

I'll take that as yes you do.