Trump is Trying to Shut Down the Internet
RainMom2015 wrote:
Let me make myself very clear
You already have. You want Trump to shut down his twitter account because he has nothing interesting to say. I'm going to point out the obvious here that what you actually mean is that in your opinion he has nothing interesting to say. So because *you* are not interested in what he has to say no-one should hear what he has to say. You then say you support free speech despite the obvious (to me anyway) contradiction?
RainMom2015 wrote:
But hey, since you seem to keep him in great regard's, come to my country and take him home to the UK with you..
Where have you got the impression I hold him in high regard? Where have I given any indication about what I feel about him either good or bad? Because I pull you up for wanting to abolish free speech that means I have to support the person whose speech you are trying to silence? That's a non-sequitur. I *genuinely* support free speech no matter who is saying it or what they are saying (legal boundaries respected of course).
As for him coming to the UK....well....the left are hard at work trying to stop that from happening. Funny that.
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
'
I saw this coming. Conservatives hate the internet because it exposes people to differing opinions.
Don't worry. I wont happen. Without the internet the U.S. economy will come to a screeching halt.
_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????
Aristophanes wrote:
Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.
So the only solution to free speech is to turn all public property over to the private sector. We'd still have freedom of speech, but we'd have no place to use it.
_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.
If my darkness or eccentricness offends you, I don't really care.
I will not apologize for being me.
Aspiegaming wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.
So the only solution to free speech is to turn all public property over to the private sector. We'd still have freedom of speech, but we'd have no place to use it.
If everything were private property your speech would have to be acceptable to whomever's property you were on. But there's as much public land as there is private land in the U.S. so that's not really a concern. My only point is that over the last 2-3 years I've seen people's idea of free speech change to one where they think they have the right to say anything anywhere, and expect the government to tamp down the free speech of others they don't agree with. None of that passes constitutional muster, the government claims in the Bill of Rights that they won't impede a citizen's free speech, the Bill of Rights makes no claims about the government defending your speech against others (that would be impossible because by default the government has chosen sides, thus impinging other's freedom of speech), nor does the Bill of Rights apply to situations between citizens, it is ONLY applicable between the government and the citizens.
If a public institution bars a person or group from access to their property that's a 1st amendment issue, if some other group shows up to your rally and drowns you out, that is not a 1st amendment issue, the government granted access which is all they guarantee in the Constitution. Other laws may apply, but not the 1st amendment. If someone shows up to your business or home and starts saying inflammatory things, you have every right to give them the boot and that's not a 1st amendment issue because again, the Bill of Rights is a contract between the people and the government not between private individuals/groups. There is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in a private institution or residence, any speech in the private sector is at the discretion of the person/group that owns the property, and that's not a 1st amendment issue because, again, it only applies to the government.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,249
Location: Long Island, New York
Aristophanes wrote:
Aspiegaming wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.
So the only solution to free speech is to turn all public property over to the private sector. We'd still have freedom of speech, but we'd have no place to use it.
If everything were private property your speech would have to be acceptable to whomever's property you were on. But there's as much public land as there is private land in the U.S. so that's not really a concern. My only point is that over the last 2-3 years I've seen people's idea of free speech change to one where they think they have the right to say anything anywhere, and expect the government to tamp down the free speech of others they don't agree with. None of that passes constitutional muster, the government claims in the Bill of Rights that they won't impede a citizen's free speech, the Bill of Rights makes no claims about the government defending your speech against others (that would be impossible because by default the government has chosen sides, thus impinging other's freedom of speech), nor does the Bill of Rights apply to situations between citizens, it is ONLY applicable between the government and the citizens.
If a public institution bars a person or group from access to their property that's a 1st amendment issue, if some other group shows up to your rally and drowns you out, that is not a 1st amendment issue, the government granted access which is all they guarantee in the Constitution. Other laws may apply, but not the 1st amendment. If someone shows up to your business or home and starts saying inflammatory things, you have every right to give them the boot and that's not a 1st amendment issue because again, the Bill of Rights is a contract between the people and the government not between private individuals/groups. There is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in a private institution or residence, any speech in the private sector is at the discretion of the person/group that owns the property, and that's not a 1st amendment issue because, again, it only applies to the government.
That is why when discussing SJW’s and speech codes censorship is more accurate terminology then free speech.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
If "the Internet were shut down" it would not be President Trump's fault. It would be NoKo's fault because they sent an EMP attack which disabled our electric grid - Internet, home heating (elect. fan), cell phones, refridgeration (ice cold drinks which we take for granted), etc...
^^^
They would be called "the good 'ol days".
So we need to prevent World War III before it happens.
_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 123 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 116 of 200
You seem to have both neurodiverse and neurotypical traits
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Shut down vs. Melt down |
10 Jan 2024, 9:07 pm |
Donald Trump Likely Going To Prison |
29 Feb 2024, 1:04 am |
Trump thinks he looks like Elvis! |
13 Feb 2024, 7:54 pm |
SCOTUS: Trump to stay on ballots |
06 Mar 2024, 2:18 pm |