Shut Up

[canpakes]

So, your response is prior restraint? Who decides what is true and false prior to the person saying it? You? Some billionaire? Should we start a filter on this site? How about subgenius as the moderator of who gets to speak or not? Ajax?

Before you ask who decides what is true or not, don’t you need to make the case as to why the owner of the platform cannot have control of its content?

You used this site as an example. There are limits to what can be posted here, are there not?

And before you plead that size or readership determines a difference, please tell me where the transition point should be, and who determines it.

I think the better way to do this is to let people speak and educate the population on how to discern truth from error. You seem to know, right? But, how are we so sure about you? Maybe precrime should shut you up now before you lead the board down to tyranny? Obviously, that is the wrong decision.

How do you propose to force your education on those that don’t want it, may not have access to it or who are active players in the deception?

Also, with the election, you have said that you are willing to let Trump prosecute his claims, yet it has already been decided in your mind that he doesn't have a leg to stand on and that merely claiming that there was fraud in the electoral process is somehow corrosive to the process. At this point, the correct response is to demand that he put up or shut up and shine a huge light on what he is doing without prejudging.

Not that this hasn’t been tried at this point, but does the person at the top of the disinformation food chain (Trump) have a bit of an advantage when - in the face of your demand to put up or shut up - he can still push his version of events to millions of people in a way unmatched by the opposing side?

As for intentionally disseminating falsehoods, there are laws against that. If I falsely say I have lurid details about so and so and publish, I had better watch out for a defamation lawsuit. I have a client that did that in the name of protecting her teenage daughter from a handsy coach that got a little too close to his high school female student athletes.

It’s great that this remedy exists, but there is a huge disparity in the time and resources required to take someone to court for slander, versus the near-nonexistent time and expense requirements of tweeting out slander.

If this system is supposed to be the equalizer between truth and lie, then it appears to need help from other tactics, or other restraints.

Also, more speech means that articulate people like you have a great chance to enlighten the public and correct their errors. If your case isn't good enough, perhaps the problem lies with your case and not the audience?

There was an interesting news story this week about coronavirus-infected patients nearing death but remaining unconvinced of the existence of what was killing them. I don’t think that either the doctors - nor the symptoms of the patients - were somehow insufficiently eloquent to demonstrate the truthfulness of the facts to these patients.

Some folks have no need or desire to be convinced of facts that are inconvenient to them. Do they have the right to demand that others devote their own resources to spreading falsehoods?

[Res Ipsa]

Regarding Turley, I cited his article to show that there are remedies already for people who are reckless with their allegations of fraudulent elections. As for his assumptions, I also don't agree that unless a libel or slander allegation is raised there should be more weight given to a lawyer's statement. They lie, too (except me of course and you as well).

As for sovereign immunity, perhaps that should be reviewed. I know I hated having to turn down a couple of police abuse cases over the years due to qualified/sovereign immunity concerns. Here is an article by Prof Chemerinsky against sovereign immunity: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... cholarship for those interested.

My point is that a civil suit for defamation is not a remedy for the harm I'm addressing. The harm is to the integrity of our elections. We already criminalize some types of speech that harm the ability of our system of government to operate as intended: perjury, lying to the FBI, lying to Congress, the Hatch Act, the Congressional equivalent of the Hatch Act. We've never had to think about this before because we've never witnessed this kind of all out assault on the integrity of our elections by those that wield governmental power. There is huge difference between you and me arguing over whether actions taken by the Russians in 2016 could have swung enough votes to cause Trump's win and the President trying to overturn the election result by claiming that Hugo Chavez stole the election for Joe Biden by sending votes to a secret German server and changing them. (Hyperbole intended.) We the people should be able to protect our elections from the corrosive effects of deliberate lies about the process and results, just as we should be able to protect them from manipulation by foreign governments.

I don't think sovereign immunity is a problem. Otherwise, how could the Hatch Act exist?

[Moksha]

So, is taking away megaphones and having media companies "monitored" by the government an agreeable cornerstone of liberty? of democracy? of America?

When I think of Trump yelling "Fire!" in the theater of American democracy, I realize that giving a voice to the destroyers of democracy does not help democracy.

[canpakes]

sez the poster that carries water so often for others that your avatar should be Aquarius.

Now, don’t let your ever-present butthurt interfere with a good conversation. ; )

You are literally echoing the points i noted, of which you conveniently edited from this post.
but i get ya...you want to define speech like you want to define arms.

Previously, I asked the Doctor: “At what point, if any, does ‘free speech’ require any limits at all?”
You replied: “Honestly, at no point.”

And now you contradict yourself on the basis that if someone else decrees some type of speech to be against the law, you’re OK with it. There appears, then, to be some point for you at which some limits on free speech are acceptable.

Cool that you are trying to argue that the founding fathers surely intended the rights of the people sitting be subversive to the government whenever the government sees fit. Is that the 2nd amendment?

Yet many the same folks who helped author the Constitution also produced the Sedition Act of 1798, which does exactly what you describe above. You might want to brush up on your US history if this isn’t familiar to you.

[Gadianton]

]My second is to return to a line of thought prompted by Sub's last free speech post: how does the current effort to sabotage our election process through the deliberate telling of lies stack up with the already recognized exceptions to free speech?

The only thing subs cares about in his OP is for Trump and his supporters to have the freedom to tell lies that go viral such that they can ultimately undermine democratic processes and advance Trump to dictator.

If you want to look at what a world without free speech is like, just let Trump win again, and let him continue what he's doing now.

Freedom is one of those things that can only exist when people don't take advantage of it. In a democratic society, those at the bottom of the totem pole have the greatest freedom to speak their minds, while those in power have the greater responsibility to measure what they say. The top dog being the biggest loudmouth is a threat to free speech period, it can only end bad. If it's a choice between him getting muzzled or him muzzling everybody else, I'll go with option A. Option B is the road to a dictatorship.

If Parler can gain market share and turn the tables, ban everyone who doesn't toe the Trump / QAnon / Ramtha the alien (subs favorite part) party line, then I suppose we're all doomed, as I really don't want to go down the path of legislating against free speech, even if it's people in power talking about aliens. I do not (generally) have a problem with Twitter and Facebook (or Parler) determining what they let people say on their platform.

As for the possibility of a Parler turning the tables and only conspiracy theories, anti-science, and pro-Trump speech is allowed, I really have to put my money against it. I don't think right-wing nonsense stands on its own enough to exist at the level of Facebook. You can't have a class clown without a class. If everyone is competing to be the class clown it won't work out.

[Gunnar]

]My second is to return to a line of thought prompted by Sub's last free speech post: how does the current effort to sabotage our election process through the deliberate telling of lies stack up with the already recognized exceptions to free speech?

The only thing subs cares about in his OP is for Trump and his supporters to have the freedom to tell lies that go viral such that they can ultimately undermine democratic processes and advance Trump to dictator.

Whether or not that is really what subs cares about, it has become increasingly clear to any rational, well-informed person that that is really what Trump aspires to. It is disheartening how many of my fellow Americans are blind to that reality.

If you want to look at what a world without free speech is like, just let Trump win again, and let him continue what he's doing now.

Freedom is one of those things that can only exist when people don't take advantage of it. In a democratic society, those at the bottom of the totem pole have the greatest freedom to speak their minds, while those in power have the greater responsibility to measure what they say. The top dog being the biggest loudmouth is a threat to free speech period, it can only end bad. If it's a choice between him getting muzzled or him muzzling everybody else, I'll go with option A. Option B is the road to a dictatorship.

I'm sure you meant to say something like, "Freedom is one of those things that can only exist when people don't abuse it, or take unfair advantage of it." We definitely should fully take fair advantage of it. With that minor suggested change, I unreservedly agree with everything else you said. Especially the part about preferring option A to option B.

[Dr Exiled]

So, your response is prior restraint? Who decides what is true and false prior to the person saying it? You? Some billionaire? Should we start a filter on this site? How about subgenius as the moderator of who gets to speak or not? Ajax?

Before you ask who decides what is true or not, don’t you need to make the case as to why the owner of the platform cannot have control of its content?

You used this site as an example. There are limits to what can be posted here, are there not?

And before you plead that size or readership determines a difference, please tell me where the transition point should be, and who determines it.

I think the better way to do this is to let people speak and educate the population on how to discern truth from error. You seem to know, right? But, how are we so sure about you? Maybe precrime should shut you up now before you lead the board down to tyranny? Obviously, that is the wrong decision.

How do you propose to force your education on those that don’t want it, may not have access to it or who are active players in the deception?

Also, with the election, you have said that you are willing to let Trump prosecute his claims, yet it has already been decided in your mind that he doesn't have a leg to stand on and that merely claiming that there was fraud in the electoral process is somehow corrosive to the process. At this point, the correct response is to demand that he put up or shut up and shine a huge light on what he is doing without prejudging.

Not that this hasn’t been tried at this point, but does the person at the top of the disinformation food chain (Trump) have a bit of an advantage when - in the face of your demand to put up or shut up - he can still push his version of events to millions of people in a way unmatched by the opposing side?

As for intentionally disseminating falsehoods, there are laws against that. If I falsely say I have lurid details about so and so and publish, I had better watch out for a defamation lawsuit. I have a client that did that in the name of protecting her teenage daughter from a handsy coach that got a little too close to his high school female student athletes.

It’s great that this remedy exists, but there is a huge disparity in the time and resources required to take someone to court for slander, versus the near-nonexistent time and expense requirements of tweeting out slander.

If this system is supposed to be the equalizer between truth and lie, then it appears to need help from other tactics, or other restraints.

Also, more speech means that articulate people like you have a great chance to enlighten the public and correct their errors. If your case isn't good enough, perhaps the problem lies with your case and not the audience?

There was an interesting news story this week about coronavirus-infected patients nearing death but remaining unconvinced of the existence of what was killing them. I don’t think that either the doctors - nor the symptoms of the patients - were somehow insufficiently eloquent to demonstrate the truthfulness of the facts to these patients.

Some folks have no need or desire to be convinced of facts that are inconvenient to them. Do they have the right to demand that others devote their own resources to spreading falsehoods?

1. I said in an earlier response that the limits put on speech by Supreme Court are a good compromise

2. Each market is different so there cannot be any hard and fast rules as to where the point is that regulation should start. In this case, if the market can provide other viable alternatives and if one or a couple of corporations aren't allowed to control speech, then the government wouldn't need to step in through the courts.

3. The education part was for you and others who are complaining that the right doesn't share your views and so speech should be limited. So, take the opportunity to teach them your wisdom. If you can't, perhaps it is you who needs to step it up or perhaps your position should be re-examined?

4. Spreading truth v. lies sometimes takes time. Speech shouldn't be limited simply because you are impatient. In any event, who would decide in your world what is truth and error? Shouldn't we have more voices jumping into the fray than less? What if your horror story of Trump taking over the government in some sort of coup happens and tries to shut off any dissenting opinion. You would object to that, yet, not object to some "correct thinking" monopolist controlling speech? The answer to the problem is more speech and not less.

5. This is again the argument for/against monopoly of speech. We should prevent monopoly of speech at all costs. I know if some conservative controlled Twitter and shut down Biden, you would be complaining and I would join you. Each individual case is different. Whether Twitter or google or Facebook should get broken up depends on how much they control speech and communications. At current levels, I believe they should.

[Some Schmo]

The main problem most Americans seem to have when it comes to understanding freedoms (that is, power of any sort) is that freedoms and rights don't come without a price, that being responsibility. Americans tend to look at freedoms the way a teenager looks at adult privilege. They want the privileges, just not the attendant responsibilities.

All the damned nonsense we're hearing about "cancel culture" is the direct result of people thinking you should be able to say whatever the hell you want without any consequences. That people even repeat this phrase in any serious way shows just how whiny people have become.

Who should whine about "cancel culture?" Famous people. They are the only ones who can be cancelled; what does "cancelled" even mean in this context, if not using it as a euphemism equaling losing your job to a show being taken off the air. For everyone else, it's called "getting fired."

Maybe if these whiny damned famous people took a bit more responsibility about what they say publicly, they might protect their livelihood. If you lose your allure because you have a tendency to say idiotic things, people will lose interest, your money-making potential becomes diminished, and you're no longer useful to your employer. This is the free market in action. Don't blame culture; watch what you damned say.

[canpakes]

1. I said in an earlier response that the limits put on speech by Supreme Court are a good compromise

Agreed.

2. Each market is different so there cannot be any hard and fast rules as to where the point is that regulation should start. In this case, if the market can provide other viable alternatives and if one or a couple of corporations aren't allowed to control speech, then the government wouldn't need to step in through the courts.

I undersatand why you value this concept given its merit. My question to you would be how ‘the government’ determines what degree of control is interpreted to exist, by what company. As was pointed out earlier, Facebook and Twitter represent completely optional, non-critical speech platforms that added to the existing platform options. Neither Facebook nor Twitter’s existence eliminated another option once created. If one or just several companies are involved with this (especially as the initial drivers or creators of those platforms), then how is their addition to the communication landscape perceived by you (or ‘the government’) as a limitation to the overall communication landscape, even if they exert control over their content? What is the rationale and criteria? Simply being a major player doesn’t lend validity to being targeted without something more to bolster the case.

Certainly, Facebook’s habit of buying up potentially competing platforms can be viewed as problematic. But action there would, say, limit Facebook’s ability to acquire, as opposed to ‘breaking up’ Facebook. Likewise for Twitter, which hasn’t been on any buying spree of competitors.

3. The education part was for you and others who are complaining that the right doesn't share your views and so speech should be limited. So, take the opportunity to teach them your wisdom. If you can't, perhaps it is you who needs to step it up or perhaps your position should be re-examined?

As was pointed out earlier, if some folks can be staring reality in the face as they slide towards death from COVID and still deny the facts of their situation, then it just isn’t possible to convince all folks of certain facts or truths. And there are people who have a vested interest in promoting untruths, be it for financial or ideological gain. You can probably recognize where untruths can be corrosive or even dangerous to larger society. An obviously apt example here is what happened in Germany in the 1930s. Note that all of the ‘truth telling’ in the world could not convince the population of Germany from hosting behaviors and policies that ultimately resulted in the deaths of millions of people and a Second World War.

I wish that I could sign on to your sunny optimism, but the reality of the human condition - and history - would seem to deny that optimism. Do you also believe that there are no power imbalances that exist to favor ‘untruth’, for either personal, political or financial gain? How do ordinary citizens who may be at a significant economic or resource disadvantage counter that? Or do they just cross their fingers and hope that everything works out?

The fact that your profession exists demonstrates the flaw in believing that simply speaking truth against falsehood is all that it takes to rectify the wrong.

4. Spreading truth v. lies sometimes takes time. Speech shouldn't be limited simply because you are impatient. In any event, who would decide in your world what is truth and error? Shouldn't we have more voices jumping into the fray than less? What if your horror story of Trump taking over the government in some sort of coup happens and tries to shut off any dissenting opinion. You would object to that, yet, not object to some "correct thinking" monopolist controlling speech? The answer to the problem is more speech and not less.

You’re back to asserting that, say, Jack Dorsey is ‘controlling speech’. That choice of terminology is designed to be highly emotionally charged, but is it correct when stated so generally and without context? Twitter is a company - not the government. Twitter is allowed to control content propagated across its platform by others who merely use it to exponentially spread that (mis)information. As well, the First Amendment speaks to ‘government control’, to put it crudely. Using this as a cudgel against Twitter, as a company that has added to the communications landscape list of options, isn’t valid. You would need to explain why Twitter’s rights over its own product must be curtailed.

5. This is again the argument for/against monopoly of speech. We should prevent monopoly of speech at all costs. I know if some conservative controlled Twitter and shut down Biden, you would be complaining and I would join you. Each individual case is different. Whether Twitter or google or Facebook should get broken up depends on how much they control speech and communications. At current levels, I believe they should.

I just can’t get behind the idea that Twitter ‘controls speech’ unfairly any more so than saying that Jacor Communications or Sinclair Broadcasting ‘control speech’, especially given that the latter (more blatantly) control their content. Anyone can set up an alternative vendor for Twitter-style communication, and Parler has done so. If Parler ends up being little more than a giant circle-jerk of butthurt right-wingers airing their grievances about how other people don’t believe all of the dumbarse conspiracy theories that they want to push, then Parler ends up being an unappealing waste of time, and I will have no use for it. But I’m not going to bitch about them not accommodating my desire to extend my voice if they believe that their marketing strategy doesn’t require it.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Speaking of controlling speech. Ref Ghouliani’s insane presser:

On the president's official YouTube page, the livestream of the conference featured an unfortunate hot mic incident, when someone could be heard saying "You see f***ing see Rudy's hair dye dripping down his face?"

A Motherjones reporter noted that when the Trump team noticed the error, they muted the audio, which led to Live Chat conspiracy theories about "big tech censorship."

The idea that Conservatives are actual pro-1st Amendment types is laughably absurd. Go to virtually any Conservative news site, subreddit, or some other forum and they’re just as moderated or curated as Liberal forums. Hell, Conservatives have historically ignored the 1st Amendment to shut down concerts, comedians, rallies, and various other groups to squash dissent.

- Doc