Free speech vs Censorship

[Jon]

If I go to vote and decide not to decide, then did I decide on a candidate or not decide? It is as simple as that!

 

[Isaac]

I'm pretty passionate about bullying also but there is no consensus regarding what bullying means. To some it would simply be misgendering, even when accidental. You need to teach your children to recognize bullying and give them a way to fight back without being violent. If all else fails, call the principal.

Perhaps, you can reread the Constitution. I don't recall seeing any "bullying" exception or even any "fire" exception. That was simply made up by an activist court and it became "law". Just like Roe v. Wade became "law" because an activist court was trying to split the baby.

True enough, but I do like when organizations ban bullying on their own campuses, which they have a right to restrict afaik

but you're completely right- as liberals continue re-defining every term in the dictionary, 'bullying' can be used to suppress just being normal, too

 

[Isaac]

If a company wants to define bullying or schools want to define it, great. BUT, they MUST be consistent in the application of judgement also. It is the government that cannot define it and impose speech restrictions.

The problem we have is that the internet has become the public square and the various companies that control content have decided to be the thought police - at the encouragement of the government I might add. Current laws protect them from being sued. However, their attempts at censorship violate the laws that protect them. Therefore, they give up their right to be protected from lawsuits if they censor content. BUT - the government is playing favorites and because it agrees with the censorship, will not deign to punish the internet companies for censoring groups/individuals/companies that the government thinks should be censored.

Do not buy into their way of thinking. Unless YOU are the arbiter of truth, you cannot personally decide on what content needs to be censored.

I agree that our children are in danger. They get bullied on Social Media and we can't see it. That is why parents always need access to their children's accounts. Not to police the children per se but to be sure that they are not being abused without our knowing it. OR, if we are not bullies ourselves, we should not allow our children to engage in bullying behavior.

One of the best decisions my wife has ever made as a mother is that during our kids' school years, during the 2-3 years when they were going to a little bit more questionable school, she worked as an aide in that same school. Just the simple fact of 'being' there, and the teachers knowing hey - these 2 kids' Mom works on campus and is well informed as to what is going on - were priceless for the protection of our kids.

 

[GaP42]

Pat, the internet and social media in particular, offers the ability to create and publish and provide virtually unfettered access to offensive material. It is not like a shop front, or magazines in wrappers, where purchase/access can be vetted. And that access has consequences - such as youth suicide, self-harm and mental health, sacrificed in support of free speech where anyone can say/publish/promote any views.

The material encouraging radical extremist terrorism is published on the net. I agree, you do have a choice as an individual to see/read - and everyone else does too -- even those who are susceptible to those views that may not have the maturity to deal with it (and we know who they are, we label them as "others" and easily dismiss their concerns). You could be accused, under the guise of the argument "you accept what you are prepared to walk by" support for the most extreme behaviour through your no censorship position (the No Decision is a Decision argument)

If you think I am conflating the protection of children with the right of adults to hear from all sides of a debate, are you trying to artificially separate the free speech debate? The act of separation could be viewed as censorship and decisions/criteria are applied. It happens in many areas, and unequally in different media.

The free speech argument is an attractive proposition: it is an absolute rule and has simplistic appeal, but I do not think it is so simple, and neither is censorship. Nanny state complaints, where one set of regulation (censorship) over-reaches to control access or behaviour, are about where/if those rules should apply or at what level they should apply. Generally, "censorship" regulation should set a minimum acceptable level of behaviour and individuals can then apply personal constraints on top of those.

Bullying - there are various legal protections in the adult/business world governing unfair threats, slander, harassment, discrimination: they are politcal/state rules - not formulated or enacted by one's own commitment within a workplace or school. Prevention is better than the cure. There are various ways to support prevention - parenting/ education. Is censorship a mechanism that can be used to prevent the spread of bullying behaviours? Any censorship mechanism would, I expect, need to be the enaction of a regulation/ political decision.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If I go to vote and decide not to decide, then did I decide on a candidate or not decide? It is as simple as that!

You implicitly asked a question but explicitly stated a different one.

In your scenario, you REALLY asked "Do I want to vote for A or do I want to vote for B?" To which a possible answer is "No to both of them. Ho, hum, I'll go home." Most of the time when you have a choice to make, the exclusion of both options is a possibility.

Your question of "did I decide or not decide" doesn't matter. Your decision of a choice would lead to an action of voting for one or the other. If your decision was "I don't like either one, I'm not going to vote", that has the same result as "I can't choose between either one so I can't vote". If you don't resolve the dilemma of choice, the reason doesn't matter. In either case, you didn't vote. There are only three ends here. Vote A, Vote B, or don't vote. (I'll take door #3, Monty...)

 

[Space Cowboy]

IT would be nice if we could Vote A and B.

 

[Lightwave]

I think the majority of people are very bad at judging the validity of what they are being told.

People tend to develop a viewpoint and then pretty much stick to it only accepting evidence which confirms their beliefs.

I admire people that can change their viewpoint based on coherent logical reasoning. I have been told by various doctors that even people who are faced with clear medical evidence that they need to change their daily habits are unable to do so.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This comes from years ago in National Lampoon. A GREAT idea would be that ALL ballots for elective office should include "None of the above" and if that choice wins, the office is vacant. It can't make new policies and is restricted in other ways (don't remember them all). But the kicker was that even if someone DOES win, any candidate that lost to "none of the above" was barred from running for public office for the next two general elections.

 

[jpl458]

I'm for free speech. The problem is that those who are "censoring" don't believe that they are actually "censoring" as they have the sanctimonious belief that they are combating disinformation to "protect" the public! Unfortunately the public is that gullible, which is why Biden's approval rating is still in the 30% range when it should be close to 0%.

An Orwell quote: "Free speech is my right to say what you don't want to hear."

Mark Levin had a segment on the role of the press. The press no longer views reporting neutral facts. Instead, those reporting on events write about it through a left wing advocacy lens.

Media pumps up stuff in order to sell time to ads. The news media should not be a profirt center, I rmemeber, way back, when NBC just reported actual news. It was local stations that discovered they could make prfit from jacking up the news, then the national news followed suit. Now it's all about scaring people into watching so they can sell Preparation H.

 

[Mike Krailo]

If I go to vote and decide not to decide, then did I decide on a candidate or not decide? It is as simple as that!

Sounds like you decided to waste your time after you initially decided to go and vote. That going to vote thing implies you already made your mind up who you were going to vote for before going to the ballot box, otherwise wouldn't you simple stay home and because that effectively is the same as not voting for either candidate? I can't help but think of the Star Trek episode where the crew outwit the androids with the paradox of the liar causing them to self destruct.

If you were to remain perfectly still with your eyes closed, you are making the decision not to move and keep your eyes closed. In other words, you are in control of your thoughts and which one's you act on which causes you to remain motionless. If the whole world decided to do that at the same time, would it shutdown the internet?

As far as the free speech aspect, if you remain silent about issues that are important to you or your family, or community, then you are effectively censoring yourself and not being involved in anything. Of course actions speaks louder than words, so if you instead do something about it without talking about it, that could be highly effective in getting your point across to others.

 

[GaP42]

Ask yourself why big Tech doesn't have algorithms that ferret out bullying or other attacks that endanger children and yet they are johnny-on-the-spot when a scientific paper is published that disagrees with the leftist position or an article that presents a conservative point of view in a positive light. The "mis-information" is immediately dumped on and marked as "false" by the "fact checkers". Do they care about our children or do they care about pushing a political agenda? Also, the people who create the software that is intended to addict children (and adults) do not allow their own children to use it.

They care about money - and generate click-bait. Bias is a side-note, it is used to pit one side against the other. As much as you see contrary pieces about scientific papers on climate change, I see the unjustified promotion of those same papers/viewpoints in other outlets.
If I am to understand your viewpoint about free speech, all outlets would be required to publish/discuss equally all viewpoints - no filters. If so, then media has no role in moderating content? No editors? What does that mean for free enterprise in this space? Or is free speech a right, however no one has the right to expect my views to be heard? In which case are those fact checkers just exercising that right? You may as well be p****** in the wind.
Media care about ratings as that translates to $$$$. And there is someone who has a particular craving for attention, a dependency for self-aggrandisement that has now outgrown the media itself.

If you have ratings, you can be the meanest, most horrible human being in the world. There’s only one thing that matters: ratings. You can be nice, or you can be mean. You can be evil. You can be horrible. You can be crude or elegant. There’s only one thing that matters, and that’s ratings," he reiterated. "If you don’t have ratings, it doesn’t matter.

 

[GaP42]

Don't confuse actual "media" such as newspapers and TV stations and magazines and podcasters with search engines and social media companies.

Social MEDIA companies are not passive: they facilitate and promote the content they garner and host from their "members" and gain significant profit from its popularisation. Their algorithms and biases are tuned to their needs. Search engines operate differently as they present content hosted elsewhere and gain profit from ads placed on their results. Blogs and other content providers tune and pay for their content to get high in the search results. However I am sure you know that...

Unlike media companies, this class of company does not produce the content they publish

However, as noted earlier, there are some who would disagree:

And the High Court of Australia ruled that:

• The High Court has upheld that publishers may be liable for third party comments made on their facebook page.
• Publishers including media outlets, companies and individuals may be liable despite any intention or knowledge of the defamatory matter. Merely by creating a facebook page and allowing comments you may be considered as ‘encouraging and facilitating’ defamatory comments.

"Media" companies are always biased.

So they have responsibility ... and yet you say they should not be allowed to squash opinion. So a free-for-all. How are they then to protect themselves from liability as publishers - if it is accepted that they are (as some quite authoritative sources think they are).

The COVID lies also resulted in many deaths

Yes I know you have this view but you are very biased!

1. There were MANY EXCESS deaths recorded in the statistics directly attributable to COVID in the US. (100,000)
2. A study has reported that 17% of excess deaths attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic were not assigned to Covid-19 on death certificates. ie under-reported.
3. Vaccine efficacy: In June 2020, the FDA placed the threshold for acceptable vaccine efficacy at VE = 50 per cent or higher. This goal was greatly surpassed, with reports of VE = 95 per cent or VE = 94.1 per cent after two doses. Still, even a vaccine 50 per cent effective is very worthy: it can cut the risk of infections or hospitalizations in half. Actually, the same vaccine could present different efficacies, depending on the event of interest - hospitalisations alone for eg.
4. Vaccine testing: how long would you wait? or is that view only formed post the event. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccine development pathway was accelerated. First, as SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, it shares similarities with SARS-CoV-1 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS) and MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, MERS). Prior work on SARS and MERS vaccines reduced time spent on pre-clinical assessment of COVID-19, and the target antigen was identified quickly. Two months after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced and shared, the first phase I clinical trials began in March 2020. Phase II clinical trials began before phase I clinical trials ended. For many COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, phase I and phase II clinical trials were combined to help speed up the progress. However, scientific design was not compromised as the dosage, safety and immunogenicity measures were evaluated. Phase III clinical trials also began before phase II clinical trials were complete. There were a few trials where phase II and phase III were combined. Overlapping and combined phases of clinical trials, the urgency of a need for a safe and effective vaccine, international collaborative efforts, funding and pre-planning in manufacturing have allowed vaccine development time-frame to be compressed to about 10 months.

Are you an expert in such development or studies? Or was it just a BIG PHARMA hit job? There was an element of real concern about how deadly and transmissible was COVID. So much so that there was one very influential person with no medical background who promoted the use of other meds, UNTESTED for effectiveness is treating COVID. But you would not promote the use of medicines untested for that purpose -- you might otherwise be diverting them to useless "cures" that increase the deaths attributable to COVID.​

​

Are the COVID lies about the above? or are they about how the politicians and medical authorities responded or the recommendations about how to reduce/ limit transmission through social contact and mask wearing?​

​

This discussion re COVID is only here as you raised it - and is not meant for continued "on topic" conversation,​

 

[Cotswold]

As you will know some newspapers allow the public to respond to articles online. At the start this was totally free and you only needed to register but now they charge. Several years ago the Telegraph newspaper announced in a short note to the effect that Google was to manage the content but that only showed for a couple of days and never again.
At the time I commented here and there and in relation to an article, referred to Facebook as basically a communistically controlled organisation in my posting. The posting was removed within less than a minute. Some weeks later in another posting I buried in the text that many of the FANNGS are autocratic. In another they were puritanical with Victorian policies. Those too were removed.

I do presume that all newspapers have the same controlling censorship. I also presume that the arbiters of these publication are doing it in order to gather data on all those who post online. Those who sign up to be a "registered customer". It does follow their general obsessive behaviour patterns. Just as credit card companies pass our data to Google et al. First to make a little extra money and also to satisfy Google's belief that it will improve their ability to sell advertising.

I understand that in the newspaper postings they will gather from data on the columns you read online. If they know who you are and adjust the stories to correspond to those that 'they' consider you prefer. Thereby encouraging you to return by association. Clearly, if you are middle to right wing you may read the Telegraph, or the Times but would be little interested in reading the nonsense in the Guardian. And visa versa. Basically, you will associate with the people that you like and agree with. We are all only here because of an interest in Access.

Apart from the fact that the newspaper forums are hugely timewasting. After that tiny sample of mine I stopped posting and deleted the email address used. I've have never subscribed, or joined to Facebook, Twitter or the rest of the so called; social media platforms. I find emails can be bad enough, so don't see the point. In fact I never read, or reply to emails on my phone. Only on the PC once a day. Today I restrict myself to reading online news to fifteen minutes a day and never more than once a day and preferably every few days. It can get to the point that the everchanging stories appear almost to be a serial. Or an online soap opera. It can become an obsession and so timewasting.

I bought my latest car about four years ago. It wants me to link to my phone, which I have never done. I reason that it cannot be of the slightest benefit for me to do that. It therefore must be to someone else's benefit. Why do they need to know where I am and how fast I'm going? Why do they need access to my phone? Would they be saving my calls and texts, even when I'm not in the car?

I delete every request for feedback comment on any service I have received.
First: If I had a problem, or an issue, I'd tell them.
Second: Will it be used by HR to gather data with the specific intention of attacking, abusing, or controlling their colleagues?
Third: The request comes from a totally different company who will sell my data to all and sundry.
Fourth: Just another example of data gathering because they can.
Fifth: Apart from me everyone else involved in that pointless feedback industry. they are getting paid. I receive nothing at all. So why do it?

In fact, come to think of it! What the hell am I doing writing this stuff? Am I timewasting I ask myself?
Reminds me of the song by Otis Redding; Sitting on the dock of the bay.........wasting time. Not me at all.

I'm off, I've got loads to do and little time to do it in!

 

[GaP42]

@Pat Hartman
The thread topic is “Free speech and censorship”. The OP did not make any reference to “in the USA”. By saying any other opinion/ legal viewpoint is irrelevant as an argument is very arrogant – it reflects a commonly held opinion of the US as being imperialistic, self-centred and ignorant of other world views.

Retreating to the only opinion that matters is that of the US tells me your argument is very weak.

However, don’t rely on Section 230 - it allows those services to “restrict access” to any content they deem objectionable. In other words, the platforms themselves get to choose what is and what is not acceptable content, and they can decide to host it or moderate it accordingly. That means the free speech argument frequently employed by people who are suspended or banned from these platforms — that their Constitutional right to free speech has been violated — doesn’t apply. '
That’s the US way… You may like it to be otherwise – it suits your black and white thinking.

COVID:

I never claimed to be unbiased – there is no one who can claim to be, at least in matters like these. All we can do is look at good evidence and avoid cherry-picking, confirmation bias and exercise our critical thinking capabilities. We all need to be on guard. Perhaps ...

“Terrify the sheeple”

- Aah! - you have special knowledge..

“The guidance issued early in 2020 by the FDA told hospitals and doctors to attribute a death to COVID if it was possible that the deceased might have had COVID. Everyone went along with the joke because if "COVID" was involved in treatment then there was more money in it for them.”

Don’t you mean the CDC? Sloppy

A standard protocol for reporting of cause of death, is attribute the underlying cause, when there are multiple co-morbidities. They also report the co-morbidities.

Stikes me as strange, and suggests over-reach, where you say “Everyone went along with the joke … because there was more money in it for them”. So you are suggesting that the act of reporting cause of death as COVID meant the MDs who did it received more money for doing it? Hmm … Ooh no that is not the claim – its that hospitals are able to claim more for COVID patients because of the services they provide to such patients because of the clinical need to place them on ventilators (for example). So it was not about reporting of deaths from COVID. It was about trying to “game” the system – where MDs make decisions about the clinical care people need. Are you serious? Is that what you are saying skewed the stats on COVID death reporting? It really does not hold up does it? Over-servicing of those struggling to breathe, when ventilators were in short supply. Damn the Hippocratic oath.

That was your BIG LIE # 1

Did they exhume bodies and give them COVID tests to determine this statistic?

You clearly did not think too much about this. On the one hand you have the numbers from the death certificates within a period of time – and the number of COVID death per 1000 of the population ( a std measure). Secondly you have the overall rates of death, per 1000, reported prior to the pandemic and during the pandemic. The pandemic did result in an increase in the rates of death from the normal underlying rate. That suggests the difference is the due to COVID. Then you can consider the difference in the rate reported from Death Certificates and those from the bump of the pandemic – a 17% under-reported level. Perhaps those hospitals could have got more money?

There were no double-blind studies so How they can determine efficacy is a mystery to me. This is anecdotal and it "feels good" and so gets repeated.

And yet there is this from a published review in 2021: A total of 25 RCTs (123 datasets), 58,889 cases that received the COVID-19 vaccine and 46,638 controls who received placebo were included in the meta-analysis.

Some anecdotal evidence on your part. I understand you are not an expert in so many things (science, stats, medicine just as I am not an expert too) but please don’t repeat that misinformation.]

That was your BIG LIE # 2

And then you defend the use of drugs that are not a treatment for COVID, and the MDs that prescribed them. No clinical trial. Hypocritical somewhat? Malaria and COVID are not the same. No wonder I doubt your medical expertise. And your PCP compromised their Hippocratic Oath? Do they also promote other quakery?

From the Lancet: “hydroxychloroquine did not have clinical benefit for COVID-19.”

And re Ivermectin: The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, has stated that there’s “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease”.

Hmm – What BIG LIE (#3) are you promoting? Which BIG PHARMA have you invested in?

People died – may be because they listened to people like you.

Or do you know how to conduct clinical studies, analyse results and report clinical efficacy, because you have qualifications and can see through what BIG PHARMA and their crony scientists do to hide clinical evidence. No, I am not suggesting we take everything they say without scepticism – there is self-interest here so beware when it comes to public argument. But in relation to the observational evidence and the statistical methods and interpretations based on that is much more solid than the stuff marketing says.

So you had no choice, but you refused to kow-tow. So you made a choice, and you live / accept the consequences. Do not let the health of others, that are put at risk by not taking on board advice to prevent spread, impinge upon your rights. Just do as you like. Others had to consider measures that would best protect the vulnerable, not just oneself.

So: “pushing a drug that doesn’t actually prevent you from catching the disease”

Is this an attempt to reframe: this is YOUR BIG LIE no 4.!!

Well the COVID vaccines do not prevent you from ever catching the disease, but there are many considerations that go beyond that:

• Do they give immunity for a period of time? (the frequency of needing a booster is high, and perhaps there is variation amongst the population as to how well it stimulates the patients own immune system, preparing it for a COVID attack).
• Is it possible to identify those at high risk and if so only give to those at higher risk?
• Do they reduce the severity of symptoms experienced?
• Did they reduce the pressure on hospitals and medical staff to cope with the numbers of patients?
• Is natural immunity brought about by getting COVID give you greater protection? At what risk compared to the vaccine?

I hope you can accept the above is given in good faith - albeit from someone who is biased - and may give you some pause for re-assessment.

 

[Jon]

You implicitly asked a question but explicitly stated a different one.

In your scenario, you REALLY asked "Do I want to vote for A or do I want to vote for B?" To which a possible answer is "No to both of them. Ho, hum, I'll go home." Most of the time when you have a choice to make, the exclusion of both options is a possibility.

Your question of "did I decide or not decide" doesn't matter. Your decision of a choice would lead to an action of voting for one or the other. If your decision was "I don't like either one, I'm not going to vote", that has the same result as "I can't choose between either one so I can't vote". If you don't resolve the dilemma of choice, the reason doesn't matter. In either case, you didn't vote. There are only three ends here. Vote A, Vote B, or don't vote. (I'll take door #3, Monty...)

Doc, I think you changed my question. I see what you did there!

My question was not about which candidate to vote for. My question was about if I should vote or not. It was not about voting for a choice between A or B. It was: do I want to vote for (A or B) vs not voting at all? That is a different question to: do I want to vote for A or B?

The question about whether or not to vote does not implicitly ask who to vote for, A or B. It doesn't care about that. It is a different topic altogether.

There are only three ends here. Vote A, Vote B, or don't vote.

That is of course true, although there is a fourth: spoiled ballot!

But while the ends are three choices, my question was not about the three choices. That is a different question. Mine was about whether you decide to vote or not decide to vote. That has nothing to do with WHO to vote for, and all to do with WHETHER to vote or not.

By the way, I did vote this time around. Why? To keep my dad happy! He was incapacitated and so couldn't vote, so I offered to vote for him, using my vote. He, and our cleaner, were enthusiastic about me putting my vote in. It seems I was the only one aware that me going to vote was actually a negative thing for a) traffic poliution, b) personal costs for petrol and car wear and tear, c) lost time when it is finite. And all for something that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to who gets in power. However, I did enjoy it as it got me out of the house, I did something different and it was nice to see the volunteers doing their thing for democracy. The mass delusion that an individual vote counts is real and persistent I now expect signficant tax rises, where the Labour government swoops in to grab what they can. It always happens, whatever they say before being elected. A leopard can't change its spots.

 

[ColinEssex]

You are entitled to all your own opinions whether they are valid or not.

Shame you don't extend that courtesy to others on these forums.
Col

 

[GaP42]

The FDA approves drugs.

But not advice about recording cause of death on death certificates?
Thanks for allowing me to have my own opinions - free speech lives.
The pretzels are good too!
May you live in interesting times.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Shame you don't extend that courtesy to others on these forums.
Col

Col, I am acting as a member, not as a moderator.

You can't give it up, can you? We get tired of seeing your same old goading behavior all of the time. You are beyond boring with this. I try to be polite but it becomes harder each time you decide to throw in a personal dig at someone. Do you even HAVE a forgiving bone in your body or did you break the last one a long time ago?

If you do things like this because you are bored, go find a card club or a gardening club or a literary club and see if you can give one of their members a little verbal dig now and then. But of course, doing so while face-to-face might have less pleasant consequences, right?

Are you doing this constant goading because you think you are immune to repercussions? Jon's policies stop me from taking punitive action on your account, and so I won't do that. But I can call you out for really sad behavior and let you know that your actions are not appreciated. And your feigned innocence is typical of the actions of all bullies. I leave it to others to decide that for themselves. I already know your style.

 

[ColinEssex]

I could comment on that but I'm not going to. . . . Yet.
Col

 

[Dave E]

Not even close. Once you lose your right to speak your mind, you lose your right to think. If I don't want to hear what you have to say, I don't have to listen. You don't get to override my decision by constantly calling my phone or PM'ing me when I specifically tell you not to.

Listening is not something you can switch off. In the UK we have freedom of expression which allows people to voice their opinions but, unlike in the US, using foul language is deemed to be a public order offence. Hence the different terminology.