Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Spot the threat to free speech

Spot the threat to free speech

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
106 Posts 15 Posters 3.3k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • CopperC Offline
    CopperC Offline
    Copper
    wrote on last edited by
    #6

    It's OK if Mr. Trump defends himself.

    And it is OK if Twitter defends itself.

    Competition is good.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • George KG Offline
      George KG Offline
      George K
      wrote on last edited by
      #7

      The head of "Site Integrity" at Twitter:

      Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 7.59.57 AM.png
      Posts this, on Twitter:

      Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 8.00.09 AM.png

      "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

      The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

      HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
      • George KG Offline
        George KG Offline
        George K
        wrote on last edited by
        #8

        Turley's take on this kerfuffle, including Roth's comments:

        https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/27/gander-meet-goose-executive-in-charge-of-twitter-rule-enforcement-under-fire-for-anti-trump-postings/

        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

        1 Reply Last reply
        • George KG George K

          The head of "Site Integrity" at Twitter:

          Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 7.59.57 AM.png
          Posts this, on Twitter:

          Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 8.00.09 AM.png

          HoraceH Online
          HoraceH Online
          Horace
          wrote on last edited by
          #9

          @George-K said in Spot the threat to free speech:

          The head of "Site Integrity" at Twitter:

          Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 7.59.57 AM.png
          Posts this, on Twitter:

          Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 8.00.09 AM.png

          Shocking.

          Education is extremely important.

          1 Reply Last reply
          • JollyJ Jolly

            It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.

            HoraceH Online
            HoraceH Online
            Horace
            wrote on last edited by
            #10

            @Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:

            It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.

            I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.

            Education is extremely important.

            jon-nycJ MikM 2 Replies Last reply
            • George KG George K

              The "It's a private company and they can censor whomever they want" argument has been around since the origin of social media.

              As Ax would probably say, "Let POTUS establish his own platform and let it survive or die according to the free market."

              But, does there come a time when Twitter, FB or anyone else become the de-facto town square? I don't know, but it's a question that bothers me.

              jon-nycJ Online
              jon-nycJ Online
              jon-nyc
              wrote on last edited by
              #11

              @George-K said in Spot the threat to free speech:

              As Ax would probably say, "Let POTUS establish his own platform and let it survive or die according to the free market."

              He wouldn't have to. He could join ThinkSpot today, and many millions would follow him there by the end of the week.

              Compare that to the lack of remedy when there is a true free speech threat - if the guys with guns are enforcing things.

              Only non-witches get due process.

              • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
              1 Reply Last reply
              • HoraceH Horace

                @Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.

                I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.

                jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nyc
                wrote on last edited by
                #12

                @Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                @Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.

                I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.

                I can't make sense out of it. Is Twitter the town hall or the internet? I can see the Internet being considered akin to the public airwaves in many ways, but not in a 'fairness doctrine' sense, since quite literally everybody can and does publish. Broadcast was different because of scarcity.

                Only non-witches get due process.

                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                CopperC 1 Reply Last reply
                • X Offline
                  X Offline
                  xenon
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #13

                  So much intellectual scaffolding has to be built around this man’s statements.

                  KlausK 1 Reply Last reply
                  • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                    @Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                    @Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                    It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.

                    I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.

                    I can't make sense out of it. Is Twitter the town hall or the internet? I can see the Internet being considered akin to the public airwaves in many ways, but not in a 'fairness doctrine' sense, since quite literally everybody can and does publish. Broadcast was different because of scarcity.

                    CopperC Offline
                    CopperC Offline
                    Copper
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #14

                    @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                    Broadcast was different because of scarcity.

                    CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio

                    Twitter vs TNCR

                    jon-nycJ X 2 Replies Last reply
                    • CopperC Copper

                      @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                      Broadcast was different because of scarcity.

                      CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio

                      Twitter vs TNCR

                      jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nyc
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #15

                      @Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                      @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                      Broadcast was different because of scarcity.

                      CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio

                      Twitter vs TNCR

                      In the days when it was CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio we had the fairness doctrine.

                      The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.

                      Only non-witches get due process.

                      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                      CopperC 1 Reply Last reply
                      • CopperC Copper

                        @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                        Broadcast was different because of scarcity.

                        CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio

                        Twitter vs TNCR

                        X Offline
                        X Offline
                        xenon
                        wrote on last edited by xenon
                        #16

                        @Copper Can you imagine what would happen to our usership if Trump joined TNCR. The "So..." thread would become unusable.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • HoraceH Horace

                          @Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                          It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.

                          I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.

                          MikM Offline
                          MikM Offline
                          Mik
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #17

                          @Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                          @Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                          It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.

                          I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.

                          I'm not sure how you could possibly get around it.

                          “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                            @Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                            @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                            Broadcast was different because of scarcity.

                            CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio

                            Twitter vs TNCR

                            In the days when it was CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio we had the fairness doctrine.

                            The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.

                            CopperC Offline
                            CopperC Offline
                            Copper
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #18

                            @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                            The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.

                            I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?

                            Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.

                            jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                            • LarryL Offline
                              LarryL Offline
                              Larry
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #19

                              When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.

                              jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                              • CopperC Copper

                                @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                                The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.

                                I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?

                                Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.

                                jon-nycJ Online
                                jon-nycJ Online
                                jon-nyc
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #20

                                @Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                                @jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                                The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.

                                I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?

                                Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.

                                Twitter is like 7th largest social media site, excluding the foreign ones that aren't in use here.

                                If twitter is too large and needs the government to control its content surely Fox News does too.

                                Only non-witches get due process.

                                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                CopperC 1 Reply Last reply
                                • LarryL Larry

                                  When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.

                                  jon-nycJ Online
                                  jon-nycJ Online
                                  jon-nyc
                                  wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                                  #21

                                  @Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:

                                  When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.

                                  Man A vs Man B analogy fails. This is Government vs Man.

                                  Only non-witches get due process.

                                  • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  • LarryL Offline
                                    LarryL Offline
                                    Larry
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #22

                                    I didn't know Twitter was a government agency... because you see, it was Twitter that made the first punch.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    • jon-nycJ Online
                                      jon-nycJ Online
                                      jon-nyc
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #23

                                      The seventh largest social media site adding commentary to someone's unedited post isn't a threat to free speech.

                                      The men with guns, or the rules enforced my men in suits with the implied power of the men with guns behind them, is the threat to free speech.

                                      Only non-witches get due process.

                                      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • L Offline
                                        L Offline
                                        Loki
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #24

                                        We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.

                                        Second the right to free speech as a person is not the right of anonymous entity to spew polarizing garbage to millions of people. I don’t think the Constitution provides protection for that.

                                        HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
                                        • jon-nycJ Online
                                          jon-nycJ Online
                                          jon-nyc
                                          wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                                          #25

                                          @Loki
                                          So you're saying Trump should be banned from Twitter altogether? Oh, never mind. You said anonymous.

                                          Only non-witches get due process.

                                          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups