Does Freedom of speech mean freedom from being fact checked?

[Lark]

If you are a federal, state, or local government entity in the United States using the Services in your official capacity and legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you. For such U.S. federal government entities, these Terms and any action related thereto will be governed by the laws of the United States of America (without reference to conflict of laws) and, in the absence of federal law and to the extent permitted under federal law, the laws of the State of California (excluding choice of law).

Does the above clause have any impact?  It seems to allow Trump an uncomfortable amount of power, in so far as he can control the various alphabet agencies.   It prevents Trump from having to use a court where he did not appoint the judges.  

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

If you are a federal, state, or local government entity in the United States using the Services in your official capacity and legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you. For such U.S. federal government entities, these Terms and any action related thereto will be governed by the laws of the United States of America (without reference to conflict of laws) and, in the absence of federal law and to the extent permitted under federal law, the laws of the State of California (excluding choice of law).

Does the above clause have any impact?  It seems to allow Trump an uncomfortable amount of power, in so far as he can control the various alphabet agencies.   It prevents Trump from having to use a court where he did not appoint the judges.  

depends on which Twitter account he is using to spread his bullshit. 

 

[Amati]

Dylan, yes.

and this is fake news:

 

[Irish River]

How would things change if Twitter moved its head office out of the US, to somewhere out of reach of the Trump/Barr axis of evil?

Welcome to Canada? 

Except we don't have freedom of speech here.  Canada has Freedom of Expression with reasonable limits. Sort of like our gun laws.  

 

[AJ Oliver]

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

 I'm open to being squared away. 

Square away this: The ONLY times that the Reich has the slightest interest in freedom of expression, is when someone calls them on their lying hateful bullshit. 

They lie about everything and everyone all the time; and libel good people up one side and down the other; and they incite violence. 

And now someone finally has the stones to call them on it; and they are just so hurt. 

They deserve zero sympathy from any quarter, in any form, from anyone. 

I refer here to both Trump and his sycophants as the "Reich". 

You got a problem with that? 

 

[Bus Driver]

People who deal in facts do not need, or object to, fact-checkers.

 

[Dog]

People who deal in facts do not need, or object to, fact-checkers.

People who deal in facts welcome challenges to “fact checkers”.

 

[Bus Driver]

People who deal in facts do not need, or object to, fact-checkers.

People who deal in facts welcome challenges to “fact checkers”.

Does your statement negate my statement?

 

[Burning Man]

"Freedom of speech" is a contrived gov't given liberty, according to our staunch liberals here.  And what gov't gives, gov't can take away.  

I didn't think I would have an "I told you so" example so quickly.  But here it is.  

 

[Steam Flyer]

"Freedom of speech" is a contrived gov't given liberty, according to our staunch liberals here.  And what gov't gives, gov't can take away.  

I didn't think I would have an "I told you so" example so quickly.  But here it is.  

We the people agreed that the government we form for ourselves shall not take away those rights.

This about the fifteenth time I've tried to explain this, and the shortest.

- DSK

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

“Congress shall make no law...”

 

[Burning Man]

We the people agreed that the government we form for ourselves shall not take away those rights.

This about the fifteenth time I've tried to explain this, and the shortest.

- DSK

I agree.  We agreed (via the Big C Bill of Rights) to not TAKE AWAY those rights.  Where did they come from in the first place?

 

[Burning Man]

“Congress shall make no law...”

Concur.  Now finish the passage, counselor, and flesh that out to its logical conclusion.  Congress shall make no law abridging those rights.  Who gave us those rights in the first place?  What document gives those rights to us that Congress can't abridge or restrict?  

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Concur.  Now finish the passage, counselor, and flesh that out to its logical conclusion.  Congress shall make no law abridging those rights.  Who gave us those rights in the first place?  What document gives those rights to us that Congress can't abridge or restrict?  

Sorry, I don’t do requests. 

 

[Steam Flyer]

I agree.  We agreed (via the Big C Bill of Rights) to not TAKE AWAY those rights.  Where did they come from in the first place?

Thin air and wishful thinking, IMHO

There are people who will tell you that there is a benevolent wise old man with a long white beard up in the clouds, smiling down on us and granting our wishes by magic. The funny thing, the BWOM didn't get around to mentioning these rights for hundreds of thousands years. It took a bunch of rebellious lawyers to codify them.

- DSK

 

[Burning Man]

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 

IMHO, this ^^ is the operative issue at stake here.  I'm going on record as saying what Twatter did was laudable and I'm cheering deep down in my heart that they did it.  I'm simply sick and fucking tired of the blatant lies the POTUS says daily and I'm embarrassed as an American to have to hear that crap and I cringe each time stuff like this comes out.  I will also go on record as saying that Twatter, as a private company, is NOT bound by the 1st Am and they can do pretty much whatever they want that is consistent with their TOS.  Even the POTUS is not above having to comply with them.

HOWEVER, and this is a big butt...... by doing what they are doing, they do not deserve their Section 230 protections.  They can't have their cake and eat it too.  They are either a neutral platform that provides people the ability to say stupid shit, even lies, or they are a publishing house that is making editorial decisions on content.  Choose one, but they can't have it both ways.  

Furthermore, if we both censure or censor every politician's words for accuracy and truthfulness - the airwaves would literally be silent.  It's what politicians do.  It's a feature, not a bug, to them.  I wish it were not so, but it is.  The problem is the malignant shitfunnel (props to gouv for that term) just does it so damn much and in such volume, that it becomes hard to ignore.  The problem is that if twatter/FB, etc don't consistently censure or censor all content equally, then they no longer should enjoy those Section 230 protections.  And I'm here to tell you that it is 100% impossible to moderate all content equally.  They would need literally millions of content moderators, an army of lawyers and such and even then they will not catch everything.  For instance, does twatter slap down Bull Gaytor aka @Fakenews when he brags (lies) about banging hot chicks on his yacht when in fact he was at his mother's home eating meatloaf because all the gay bars are shut down and the few that are open are too far to ride across town on his Vespa???  

I think what Twatter did was grease themselves up with 5W30 synthetic motor oil, spray down the side of the hill with industrial grade aircraft grease and take a running jump down that slope face first.  It will not end well for them.

 

[Burning Man]

Sorry, I don’t do requests. 

But yet you request people like Dog to back up their words all the time.  Why are you special?

 

[Recidivist]

Concur.  Now finish the passage, counselor, and flesh that out to its logical conclusion.  Congress shall make no law abridging those rights.  Who gave us those rights in the first place?  What document gives those rights to us that Congress can't abridge or restrict?  

Document?  You haven't heard of "inherent rights" that arise from being a member of the human race (welll, with some modifications according to place of birth, and possibly colour of skin)?

I don't know about the USA, and I may be misquoting this slightly, but I remember the gist - from Halsbury's Laws of Australia - "Ours is a law of liberty - a man can do whatever has not been forbidden by Parliament".

A "document" would have to be conferred by God - an argument I'm not getting into!

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

But yet you request people like Dog to back up their words all the time.  Why are you special?

What words of mine are you wanting me to back up? If you think I have posted something inaccurate, by all means, state your case and I will respond. If you have something to say, say it. 

 

[Burning Man]

Document?  You haven't heard of "inherent rights" that arise from being a member of the human race (welll, with some modifications according to place of birth, and possibly colour of skin)?

I don't know about the USA, and I may be misquoting this slightly, but I remember the gist - from Halsbury's Laws of Australia - "Ours is a law of liberty - a man can do whatever has not been forbidden by Parliament".

A "document" would have to be conferred by God - an argument I'm not getting into!

Oh wow, you are late to the party......  Didn't you get the memo that there are no such things as "inherent rights"??? 

Start here and here for some interesting reading.  

I've been asking that question in PA these past couple of weeks and the liberal answer (which surprises me) is that there are no inherent rights.  Which is why I'm asking them which document those rights come from.  Because if they are not "inherent", they must come from somewhere.  And what is given by man can be taken away by man.  Correct?