“Free Speech” protest attacked, canceled in Frisco
I for one think the internet is two things: a human right & made for real learning/experimentation. People seeking to politicize & disinform are free to build their own websites, during which time perhaps they might learn what's actually going on.
tl;dr Everyone please stop marginalizing awesome technology with political conspiracy theories.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
From what you are getting at is the Republicans are for democracy and whatever the main opposition party is, they prefer a form of communism? Or have I got the wrong take on what you are saying? Which party is the main opposition?
As for those who seem to think these protesters are standing up for the 1st amendment by protesting Twitter's policies: as just about any libertarian will tell you, the 1st amendment does not apply to private individuals. Libertarians will tell you that business owners are within their rights to regulate speech on their platforms, property, or by those in their employ.
INCORRECT! Glad my School had Civics when I was growing up. 1st Amendment as written:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech (AKA INDIVIDUAL not connected in sentence of Press or Petition),
or of the press (The Press);
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (for ANY purpose),
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (for purpos.
"The 5 Freedoms" from the Constitution made specific: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition the government.
Established to ensure fear of laws preventing these actions would come to be and they would be safe to disagree with the govt and it's policies. Like..... em... definition of "hate speech"
and the Constitutional articles cover "harm" which includes defamation,libel and slander especially 3rd? School was a long time ago but there hasn't been a rewritten version as yet.
... on a another note, when big tech players became UTILITIES they stopped being simple "private entitities" allowed to make whatever unconstitutional rules they please and not even follow FCC guide most the time. The internet deserves its future being regulated since it wasn't free for ALL. But maybe it is time for an exodus of people to seriously leave twatter-fauxbook and their ilk just like we did AOL and MySpace. They make money off us and shove ads in our face and have strange standards on what is an offense (remember why many left MySpace? lel)
It doesn't actually make any sense that everyone is trading privacy & attention to heavily branded private companies when it's clearly common knowledge that the technology exists for everyone to digitally communicate directly between each other without governments & companies in the middle.
If the service is free, users are the product. This has led to idiots capitalizing on the spread of bad information despite knowing better.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
If one yells "Fire!" in a theater----and there's no fire, one could (and should) get arrested for "falsely reporting an incident."
There are those who believe the above is "free speech," somehow.
Burning crosses is not "free speech." It's criminal mischief/vandalism at the very least, and criminal trespass if done on somebody's lawn--No matter how you slice it.
Freedom of speech means that you are free to express your views. It is not freedom from the consequences of expressing your views. When the Proud Boys “protest” (ie goose-step), that is within their rights, but if they engage in hate crimes or do other kinds of damage in the process of protesting, that damage is not protected by the first amendment. White people can legally say the n-word but if that makes people who hear them say the n-word angry or hurt, the first amendment does not protect that white person from the reaction of the community that is offended. However, a person from the offended community would not be legally protected from retaliatory harm inflicted upon the n-word utterer.
The first amendment isn’t a free pass to do and say whatever you want. There are parameters.
