First They Came For Infowars..........

[BRD@66]

I still haven't figured you out, I'm not sure if you just like playing the devil's advocate or you're just a socialist that claims he likes guns.

ZW warned me long ago to be careful about agreeing with him. Said it would look bad on my resumé.

 

[pronstar]

That's not freedom of speech. Freedom if speech applies against the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it say what you think it says?

It protects against government interference.

Rights don’t just apply “against the government” ...be it 1A, 2A or any other right.

And like most rights, there are limits.
Most speech is protected against government interference, but not all, for instances like you mentioned.

Generally speaking, your rights end where mine begin...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[easy rider]

Sorry, do you not understand the protections of the First Amendment and what it applies to? The Bill of Rights applies to government action, not private action.

Did I quote the first amendment? No.

 

[zincwarrior]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it say what you think it says?

It protects against government interference.

Rights don’t just apply “against the government” ...be it 1A, 2A or any other right.

And like most rights, there are limits.
Most speech is protected against government interference, but not all, for instances like you mentioned.

Generally speaking, your rights end where mine begin...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Bill of Rights applies against the government or entities acting under color of law.

 

[zincwarrior]

Did I quote the first amendment? No.

That's the only freedom of speech you get hoss.

 

[easy rider]

That's the only freedom of speech you get hoss.

So I guess you don't believe in fundamental human rights then. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what God given rights I have.

 

[benenglish]

Bill of Rights applies against the government or entities acting under color of law.

Yes, but.

The problem we have with widespread de-platforming is that it's being done by large monopolies often acting in concert with the government. Where that's not happening, it's often being done for political reasons.

It's easy enough to say "OK, then, go build your own platform." However, that verges on impossible when the government hasn't been diligent about anti-trust enforcement for so long that the power to control markets has been ceded to private entities. If Alphabet doesn't want you to compete with them, you won't be able to. You'll be bought out or you'll be buried so that no one can find you.

Indeed, the core technologies that run the internet are no longer devoted to the dispassionate passing of packets back and forth. The technologies that had legitimate purposes in the beginning, say, to ensure QOS goals were met, has been perverted on widespread scales by private entities to enforce censorship, sometimes at government behest and sometimes not. The Great Firewall Of China is obviously government-directed. But when subscribestar was mostly killed by paypal for daring to host speech that the leftist controllers of silicon valley deemed unclean, was that purely a private action, untouched by government involvement? No, it wasn't. Paypal wouldn't have the power it has if the government hadn't failed to enforce anti-trust laws and/or banking regulations. The will to quash subscribestar (or Alex Jones or any of the other examples in this thread) would not have existed if the heads of tech power elite did not actively collude to shape the world in a thousand subtle ways every day. They brag about it in public speeches.

We've reached a point where the government has ceded most oversight of the common avenues of free speech to private entities.

We're going to have to accept that censorship by non-government entities is a real threat to freedom.

That threat probably long ago crossed the line where government action to rein it in was legally justified. The problem/the reason that such action has not been taken is that the issues are too complex and the infrastructure too deeply rooted for anyone to see a path forward.

There is some movement toward a renewed appreciation that servers should be running at endpoints and that blockchain may fix many things. But I sincerely doubt more than a small minority of people understand even half of the implications of that sentence.

As long as that's the case, our Orwellian future is here. It won't be long before most folks understand that "People used to think that the only censorship that needed to be stopped to keep people free was censorship by the government? How quaint, how naive a notion is that?" And by the time most folks understand that, it will be far too late to fix the problem.

 

[zincwarrior]

So I guess you don't believe in fundamental human rights then. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what God given rights I have.

I am only noting what's enforceable under the Constitution and Texas.

 

[zincwarrior]

Yes, but.

The problem we have with widespread de-platforming is that it's being done by large monopolies often acting in concert with the government. Where that's not happening, it's often being done for political reasons.

It's easy enough to say "OK, then, go build your own platform." However, that verges on impossible when the government hasn't been diligent about anti-trust enforcement for so long that the power to control markets has been ceded to private entities. If Alphabet doesn't want you to compete with them, you won't be able to. You'll be bought out or you'll be buried so that no one can find you.

Indeed, the core technologies that run the internet are no longer devoted to the dispassionate passing of packets back and forth. The technologies that had legitimate purposes in the beginning, say, to ensure QOS goals were met, has been perverted on widespread scales by private entities to enforce censorship, sometimes at government behest and sometimes not. The Great Firewall Of China is obviously government-directed. But when subscribestar was mostly killed by paypal for daring to host speech that the leftist controllers of silicon valley deemed unclean, was that purely a private action, untouched by government involvement? No, it wasn't. Paypal wouldn't have the power it has if the government hadn't failed to enforce anti-trust laws and/or banking regulations. The will to quash subscribestar (or Alex Jones or any of the other examples in this thread) would not have existed if the heads of tech power elite did not actively collude to shape the world in a thousand subtle ways every day. They brag about it in public speeches.

We've reached a point where the government has ceded most oversight of the common avenues of free speech to private entities.

We're going to have to accept that censorship by non-government entities is a real threat to freedom.

That threat probably long ago crossed the line where government action to rein it in was legally justified. The problem/the reason that such action has not been taken is that the issues are too complex and the infrastructure too deeply rooted for anyone to see a path forward.

There is some movement toward a renewed appreciation that servers should be running at endpoints and that blockchain may fix many things. But I sincerely doubt more than a small minority of people understand even half of the implications of that sentence.

As long as that's the case, our Orwellian future is here. It won't be long before most folks understand that "People used to think that the only censorship that needed to be stopped to keep people free was censorship by the government? How quaint, how naive a notion is that?" And by the time most folks understand that, it will be far too late to fix the problem.

The Founding Father's intended for no oversight of free speech except for very narrow limits, and even then, that's arguably court constructed.

 

[perfor8]

So I guess you don't believe in fundamental human rights then. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what God given rights I have.

This. Bill of Rights is an attempt to delineate SOME PORTION of the fundamental rights inherent with being a man created and born in His image.

 

[Younggun]

I am only noting what's enforceable under the Constitution and Texas.

You realize some things that are wrong are not illegal, just as some things that are illegal are not wrong...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Yes, but.

The problem we have with widespread de-platforming is that it's being done by large monopolies often acting in concert with the government. Where that's not happening, it's often being done for political reasons.

It's easy enough to say "OK, then, go build your own platform." However, that verges on impossible when the government hasn't been diligent about anti-trust enforcement for so long that the power to control markets has been ceded to private entities. If Alphabet doesn't want you to compete with them, you won't be able to. You'll be bought out or you'll be buried so that no one can find you.

I was fully on board with “start your own platform” until those avenues started coming under attack.

Gab was gaining a lot of steam so a concerted effort was made to shut it down via its means of funding as well as hosting.

Patreon started banning people who violated nothing in their user agreement so SubscribeStar became relevant. Then banks started to drop them and refuse to handle their transactions.


The issue is that multiple large monopolies are working together to lock out any competition, and that is a very big issue and extremely dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

You realize some things that are wrong are not illegal, just as some things that are illegal are not wrong...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.
On a philosophical basis, it's their property. The thought the government can mandate speech on your property is abhorrent.

 

[TxStetson]

You realize some things that are wrong are not illegal, just as some things that are illegal are not wrong...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you say right or wrong?

 

[benenglish]

On a philosophical basis, it's their property. The thought the government can mandate speech on your property is abhorrent.

On a practical basis, when I exercise free speech on my property, my computer, in my house, that speech can't be heard unless it crosses their (for certain definitions of "their") property to get out to the world.

Our free speech is landlocked on our property and our access easements through our corporate neighbors properties are being unilaterally closed, cutting us off.

Yeah, I suppose I can just order up a helicopter to get in and out of my homestead. So, undemocratically changing the rules to require everybody be able to afford a helicopter to get on and off their property isn't abhorrent at all, right?

 

[Younggun]

Yep.
On a philosophical basis, it's their property. The thought the government can mandate speech on your property is abhorrent.

Do you believe in anti trust laws?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

On a practical basis, when I exercise free speech on my property, my computer, in my house, that speech can't be heard unless it crosses their (for certain definitions of "their") property to get out to the world.

Our free speech is landlocked on our property and our access easements through our corporate neighbors properties are being unilaterally closed, cutting us off.

Yeah, I suppose I can just order up a helicopter to get in and out of my homestead. So, undemocratically changing the rules to require everybody be able to afford a helicopter to get on and off their property isn't abhorrent at all, right?

Not even taking in to account the amount of tax payer money that has gone in to the infrastructure that these corporations use to conduct their business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

On a practical basis, when I exercise free speech on my property, my computer, in my house, that speech can't be heard unless it crosses their (for certain definitions of "their") property to get out to the world.

Our free speech is landlocked on our property and our access easements through our corporate neighbors properties are being unilaterally closed, cutting us off.

Yeah, I suppose I can just order up a helicopter to get in and out of my homestead. So, undemocratically changing the rules to require everybody be able to afford a helicopter to get on and off their property isn't abhorrent at all, right?

Easements are a different area. The government doesn't say you have yo host the Democratic Convention on your land because you have an easement.

While one can have issues with tech companies on antitrust grounds ( and I do), mandatingspeech is both unconstitutional and unAmerican.

 

[zincwarrior]

Do you believe in anti trust laws?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. I am a Bull Mooser for sure.

 

[deemus]

After reading Ben's diatribe, which was really well done, I have come to realize that I can count to potato.