|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26649007 - 05/04/20 07:29 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
When you censor someone else's speech, they lose their free speech. Back to even (at best), if we agree censoring someone else's speech is 'free speech' rather than 'freedom to censor someone else's speech'.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26649029 - 05/04/20 07:37 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
I disagree, but look at it this way. If shroomery chooses not to delete your post, and 100 people read it, shroomery just used its freedom of speech 100 times. If shroomery didn't have a choice, then it wouldn't be a freedom at all.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26649040 - 05/04/20 07:49 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
meltdowner
Total Noob



Registered: 09/06/17
Posts: 1,457
Loc: New York City
Last seen: 10 months, 17 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil] 1
#26649250 - 05/04/20 09:43 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Ahahahahhahahhaha, "We must stop bad people voicing their fascist opinions.. by being fascist."
If your argumebt doesnt hold up, maybe you should rethink your position.
-------------------- I'm a Lightweight. I like to eat like two caps at a time.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: meltdowner]
#26649254 - 05/04/20 09:43 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Luckily, it does.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
meltdowner
Total Noob



Registered: 09/06/17
Posts: 1,457
Loc: New York City
Last seen: 10 months, 17 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Ovoidhunter] 1
#26649267 - 05/04/20 09:48 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Same opinion here.
-------------------- I'm a Lightweight. I like to eat like two caps at a time.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26649342 - 05/04/20 10:33 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Luckily, it does.
So you want to continue? Fine.
No source from scholars saying that private censorship is actually increasing freedom of speech? I couldn't find it either.
Quote:
Enlil said: ...look at it this way. If shroomery chooses not to delete your post, and 100 people read it, shroomery just used its freedom of speech 100 times. If shroomery didn't have a choice, then it wouldn't be a freedom at all.
Not if your past logic holds true: "The part that triggers your right to free speech is your active participation." There's no active participation by leaving a post up.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26649347 - 05/04/20 10:36 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
There is active participation because the Shroomery has to actively send that post to the 100 people to read it.
There are countless scholarly articles that discuss editorial judgment/discretion and how it fits into freedom of speech. You won't read them and/or understand them, but here are a few:
SPEAKING THROUGH OTHERS' VOICES: AUTHORSHIP, ORIGINALITY, AND FREE SPEECH, 38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 983
Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet as an Unintermediated Experience, 78 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 697
Selling the Market-Driven Message: Commercial Television, Consumer Sovereignty, and the First Amendment, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 451
The Developing Law of Editorial Judgment, 78 Neb. L. Rev. 754
IS THERE A RIGHT TO TWEET AT YOUR RESIDENT?, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 1395
Ownership Controls in the New Entertainment Economy: A Search for Direction, 7 Va. J.L. & Tech. 1
The First Amendment and the Internet: The Press Clause Protects the Internet Transmission of Mass Media Content from Common Carrier Regulation, 94 Neb. L. Rev. 559
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26649363 - 05/04/20 10:49 PM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
No, the shroomery doesn't actively do shit. Everything is automated.
The abstracts of those sources doesn't say censorship increases freedom of speech.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander



Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26649820 - 05/05/20 05:52 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
That's because abstracts provide an overview, but to get the full information, you have to read the whole article/paper.
Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet
Here's the whole article and it's kind of interesting, honestly. It discusses a lot of case law regarding the free speech of media outlets. In some of the SCOTUS opinions cited in the article, they clearly state that media must be allowed to say what they want, even if they censor information, to allow a balanced representation of viewpoints.
It does say censorship increases freedom of speech, just not as directly as you'd prefer.
--------------------
<-- Clicky Clicky
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: ShroomerInTheRye] 1
#26649971 - 05/05/20 07:24 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
That's one of the reasons I was hesitant to post them. I'm having a hard enough time trying to get him to understand that an automated process is still created and maintained by humans.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26650042 - 05/05/20 08:12 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Is this the endgame of the free speach reasoning?
1. Post on Shroomery, website keeps post up (= 2 free speech actions).
2. Post on Shroomery, website keeps post temporarily, then takes it down (= 3 free speech actions)
Now, I belive it could go further as after the final action (removing post) that action in itself could further more free speech as people question why post/content was taken down.....alas more speech is always better.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: SirTripAlot]
#26650080 - 05/05/20 08:29 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
1. Every post served to a member by the shroomery is shroomery exercising its right to free speech. This is the same as you copying a flyer written by someone else and handing it out. You didn't create the content, but you took action to spread the content.
2. Every post deleted by shroomery is an exercise of shroomery's right to free speech. This is the same as nancy Pelosi tearing up trump's speech. Pelosi made a statement by doing that.
Shroomery isn't a corporation or some huge company. It's an LLC run by a few guys in their spare time. Those few guys have a vision for this site. That vision includes the type of content they want and don't want on their site. When I ban someone for being a Nazi, that is me exercising the power delegated to me by the owners to remove that person from the marketplace of ideas contained on this site. That's speech.
The same applies to large companies that use an AI algorithm to do it. They built the algorithm to carry out their wishes vis a vis content they want to republish. It makes no difference whether it's me banning a Nazi or an algorithm. It's still speech.
Same goes for automated serving of messages. Whether you manually copy a flyer and hand it out, or you make a machine to do it, it's still your speech. Shroomery serving messages to people is still speech even if a human doesn't have to manually serve each one.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Psilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,355
Last seen: 1 hour, 59 minutes
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26650137 - 05/05/20 09:16 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Can Nazis still pm you after you ban them ? Im guessing you get some pretty interesting hate mail .
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Psilynut2] 1
#26650162 - 05/05/20 09:26 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
When it's a forum ban, yes. When it's a sitewide, no. I get hate PMs every time I issue a warning or infraction to a right winger. When I issue one to a left winger, I get an apology, usually.
Protip: I typically end bans early unless you're a dick about it.
Protip #2: If your response to my warning/infraction is "fuck you" or something similar, I typically increase the punishment.

-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Ovoidhunter
Buttery Crescent



Registered: 09/17/16
Posts: 2,016
Last seen: 3 years, 18 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26650188 - 05/05/20 09:40 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Left wing, right wing, chicken wing.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Ovoidhunter]
#26650191 - 05/05/20 09:43 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
You know what?
Chicken Butt!
You know why?
Chicken Thigh!
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Ovoidhunter
Buttery Crescent



Registered: 09/17/16
Posts: 2,016
Last seen: 3 years, 18 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
#26650204 - 05/05/20 09:49 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: ShroomerInTheRye]
#26650440 - 05/05/20 11:25 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ShroomerInTheRye said: To get the full information, you have to read the whole article/paper.
Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet
It does say censorship increases freedom of speech, just not as directly as you'd prefer.
Thank you for the link.
Maybe you can point out where it says that? I read exactly the opposite:
Quote:
...scholars have begun framing their arguments against intermediation in terms of the First Amendment, although not in a literal sense. Under current law, the First Amendment only restricts the actions of state actors and does not restrict the actions of private actors. Thus, under the conventional understanding of the First Amendment, it is governmental attempts to restrict private actors’ freedom of speech that would be constitutionally problematic. Scholars have long advanced theories that would transform the First Amendment from a negative limitation on government action into an affirmative obligation on the government to provide the means for the meaningful exercise of free speech rights. Although the Supreme Court briefly entertained the possibility that broadcasters and common carriers might be state actors for purposes of the First Amendment, the Court’s later decisions squarely foreclosed this possibility. Despite the best efforts of some advocates to expand the scope of the First Amendment, it remains a limit on governmental action that does not reach private action.
In other words, the first amendment doesn't necessarily apply to private actors. That is exactly the opposite of saying censorship increases freedom of speech and first amendment rights.
I'm still open to evidence that censorship increases freedom of speech if you got any. Sounds counterintuitive to me.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/05/20 11:39 AM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26650482 - 05/05/20 11:39 AM (4 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
You're confused. The first amendment only applies to state actors. It doesn't define the totality of free speech.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|