Does Freedom of speech mean freedom from being fact checked?

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
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?  
Clearly your law and ours differ.  I'll stick with ours.  You may carry on.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,977
4,979
De Nile
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?
By the guys who wrote the doc. Duh. Do you think they had freedom of speech before they took power from the Brits?

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,328
1,946
Back to the desert
Clearly your law and ours differ.  I'll stick with ours.  You may carry on.
No no no.... you're obviously missing my sarcasm here.  I fully agree with you and our laws here are exactly the same as yours.  I'm just taking the piss out of the folks who say there are no inherent rights and I'm trying to get them to 'splain themselves as to why they think this way.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,328
1,946
Back to the desert
By the guys who wrote the doc. Duh. Do you think they had freedom of speech before they took power from the Brits?
Yes, they had freedom of speech before they took power from the Poms.  They just were not able to exercise it.  Hence why they revolted in the first place.  But the freedom existed whether they got to use it or not.  It's not a "use or lose" sort of thing.  

And where in the Big C document does it say anywhere that the big C confers or "gives" the right of free speech, assembly, religion, press, RKBA, Privacy, Due process, or any of the other BoRs?  I'll save you some typing..... it doesn't.  Because the BoR assumes the people already are entitled to those rights because those rights are inherent in man.  All the Big C does is guarantee and protect those rights which already existed.  As sol said:  Congress shall make no law (1st).....  No soldier shall (3rd).....  Shall not be infringed (2nd).......  Shall not be violated (4th)....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,328
1,946
Back to the desert
We revolted from Australia? I did not know that.
No we did not.  

The terms Pommy, Pommie and Pom, in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand usually denotes an English person (or, less commonly, people from other parts of the UK). ... According to this explanation, "pomegranate" was Australian rhyming slang for "immigrant" ("Jimmy Grant").
You are most welcome, dumbass.

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,736
3,819
New Oak City
The funny thing is that I'm totally in favor of gutting Section 230. Rescind 230 altogether, don't rewrite or 'fix' it. Hawley's catastrophe is ten times worse than 230 itself. Just absolutely gut it. Joe Biden said the same thing. We've reached peak social media and social media ain't nothing fundamental. It doesn't deserve an immunity we never gave other media. Liability is not censorship.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/21274812/joe-biden-donald-trump-twitter-facebook-section-230-moderation-revoke

Shitstain is still Shitstain. His approach to this is un-Constitutional, and it will go nowhere which shouldn't at all be surprising. He's only doing this out pique.

Our resident Fakebertarians will be by shortly to bemoan their beloved corporate persons' loss of freedom.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,328
1,946
Back to the desert
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.
Olsen wants to burn down Section 230.  I'm ok with that too.  Anyone else?

 

El Borracho

Sam’s friend
6,436
2,453
Pacific Rim
Olsen wants to burn down Section 230.  I'm ok with that too.  Anyone else?
Y'all funny. Being a pragmatist, I'll go along with whatever the Corporate Overlords of the Internet decide for us peons. "Profit is the Product": they and their public servants will know what is best.

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,804
Sandusky Sailing Club
So we have allowed the dumb-ass Reich to once again totally hijack a thread. 

The OP concerned whether the Drumph and the Reich had the right to lie and libel 

on social media without anyone being allowed to call them out. 

@Burning Man has got you in a nonsense tither 

Yeah, an "inherent right" to deflect 

 

Sean

Super Anarchist
15,353
2,504
Sag Harbor, NY
NEW YORK TIMES’ STYLE GUIDE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR “THE PRESIDENT LIED”
by MICKEY McCAULEY
 
“The president, offering no evidence, insisted upon his version of the story.”

“The president extemporized with a blithe disregard for established fact.”

“Confounding experts and antagonizing the historical record, the president painted his own, rosier portrait of events.”

“The president, perhaps inadvertently, wound up smudging the line between empirical verification and his own boundless optimism.”

“The president once again found himself galloping ahead of reality’s leisurely pace.”

“The president dabbled anew in the shallow pond of misrepresentation, filling his beak with succulent morsels hidden among the reeds.”

“The president’s most recent encounter with the specter of honesty caught him wrong-footed.”

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and the president? The president took the one less truthful.”

“Quantum physicists posit the existence of infinite universes, so it is entirely within reason that one or more such contained the timeline described by the president, and we look forward to seeing it.”

 

Ishmael

Yes, we have no bananas
50,831
11,188
Fuctifino
NEW YORK TIMES’ STYLE GUIDE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR “THE PRESIDENT LIED”
by MICKEY McCAULEY
 
“The president, offering no evidence, insisted upon his version of the story.”

“The president extemporized with a blithe disregard for established fact.”

“Confounding experts and antagonizing the historical record, the president painted his own, rosier portrait of events.”

“The president, perhaps inadvertently, wound up smudging the line between empirical verification and his own boundless optimism.”

“The president once again found himself galloping ahead of reality’s leisurely pace.”

“The president dabbled anew in the shallow pond of misrepresentation, filling his beak with succulent morsels hidden among the reeds.”

“The president’s most recent encounter with the specter of honesty caught him wrong-footed.”

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and the president? The president took the one less truthful.”

“Quantum physicists posit the existence of infinite universes, so it is entirely within reason that one or more such contained the timeline described by the president, and we look forward to seeing it.”
That part is way wrong.

 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
The Freedom of Speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of what you say. 

I wish someone would teach the Trumpkins the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment.

1.jpg

2.jpg

 
Top