Electricity is a necessity and social media is a luxury. What are you arguing is the same as saying not only is Alex Jones entitled to a platform but he's also entitled to a platform which maximizes his audience. This seems dubious.

well played

If this means Alex Jones will be forced to host my content on his website I might be okay with it. And by “content” I mean dick pics, obv.

Is staging a protest in a public space a necessity or a luxury? The Supreme Court has held that something as dumb and awful as Westboro Baptist protesting at the funeral of a soldier is constitutionally protected.

So Alex Jones has the right to hold rallies for his incredibly dumb viewpoints. In physical space that right is absolutely protected. But in the space of social media he can only say what the corporate leaders of Facebook or Twitter say he can say. And if it is a good business decision to exile Jones from social media entirely, they can do that too.

Exactly, so if lies about a person can be punished, why not lies about the world?

I don't know, I don't really think they ought to but it was an honest question. Maybe they should at least be preventing the most egregious examples, like Volkswagen or Alex Jones.

I don't want the government deciding what speech is a lie about the world and suppressing speech that it deems to be a lie about the world. Seems like it could end badly.

I mean the question as a proponent of free speech sure, but the point was "what does the federal government consider fake news"? Well, that'd be the NYT, CNN and climate science. You don't get to hand this power to the Josh Bartlet administration.

We all know about people like you.

Alternative facts cheesemate libturds.

Τὶ ἐστιν ἀλήθεια;

we got a live one

sigh, this is always so tedious. flakes, cut to the chase and tell us what you think of immigrants.

tfw Fox News has brainwashed you into thinking "truth" and "opinions" are actually the same thing

Do you not realize that the truth is subjective and people like me love fox
Do you not realize that the truth is subjective and people like me love fox
Do you not realize that the truth is subjective and people like me love fox
Do you not realize that the truth is subjective and people like me love fox
Do you not realize that the truth is subjective and people like me love fox
Do you not realize that the truth is subjective and people like me love fox
Do you not realize that the truth is subjective and people like me love fox

Clovis is going to come and blame this on Derrida.

I'm imagining it's probably unproductive to engage you in conversation because you're likely to be OTB&C'd, and you might even just be intentionally trolling, it's kind of hard to tell these days. So, forgive me if I don't follow up on any of this.

But, just for the record, I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested a general program of "censoring sources they don't like", and I think everyone so far believes in letting people have opinions even if others disagree. The biggest disagreement really is whether it's possible to make any changes to speech protections without sliding down the slippery slope to such a general program, which everyone agrees is bad. And then the other argument is about whether the entire question is a big waste of time.

The question of the objectivity of knowledge is fun but it might be better suited to SMP. I think I've said once or twice that I take it for granted (for my purposes here) that there are reasonably objective standards for evaluating the truth of some fact claims. You may disagree but I'm uninterested in debating it, or at least uninterested in debating it in some very abstract philosophical sense. There's plenty of reasonable questions about the scope of that class of fact claim, or the political problems associated with who gets to arbitrate.

People are hungry for regulation. Who better than corporations to decide what we can and can’t listen to. People, unlike government, can not be trusted. I hope one day the internet is as safe as network television in America.

No. Who was talking about doing that?

The idea that you can be arrested for voicing your opinion about fires, in crowded theaters that are not on fire, is not terribly controversial. Do you disagree?

Oh wow, that's terrifying!

Name of this mayor? If you have time before you go.

flakesbran2,

Fact: There's no such thing as white people. You are not a white person.

It's actually not like this forum at all. Even your precious InfoWars has terms of service!

Not finding it. Maybe this is one of your subjective truths.

AUGUST 8, 2018
Offensive Speech and the First Amendment
A group of legal scholars and academics examined the limits of free speech, including whether the First Amendment protects so-called offensive or “hate speech.” Speakers included representatives from the NAACP, the Student Press Law Center and a law school dean who has argued free speech cases before the Supreme Court. This discussion was part of the 2018 annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication held in Washington, DC.

www.c-span.org/video/?449525-1/offensive-speech-amendment