Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | Next > | Last >
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26650491 - 05/05/20 11:42 AM (4 years, 14 days ago)

What am I confused about?  That's EXACTLY what I just pointed out.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26650535 - 05/05/20 11:57 AM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Okay, try reading that part you quoted again.  It says the only body not allowed to censor information is the government, and any attempts by the government to censor private actors are unconstitutional. 

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.




You are allowed to believe that drinking bleach will protect you from Coronavirus.  It is Facebook's choice to not allow that information to be represented on their platform for whatever reason they choose.  You are still free to believe the "drink bleach" theory, and you are free to broadcast that opinion where you want, but the platform providing you the broadcast space reserves the right to deny your message on their platform if it does not conform with their standards.  In the instant case, it's in Facebook's best interest to censor "drink bleach" articles because they could be held liable for someone's death or illness.


--------------------
:nyan: <-- Clicky Clicky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 4
    #26650538 - 05/05/20 11:58 AM (4 years, 14 days ago)

You seem to have lost the fundamental understanding of the whole argument.  When you post, that is YOU exercising your rights under the First Amendment to not have the government censor you.  When I delete your post, that is the Shroomery exercising its rights under the first amendment to not have the government force it to repeat your posts.  The First Amendment protects both you and the site from government intrusion. 

In no way does your quoted section undercut anything that I've said.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOvoidhunter
Buttery Crescent
I'm a teapot User Gallery


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]
    #26650559 - 05/05/20 12:04 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Could you imagine what it would be like if some absolute power hungry cunt gets the power to censor whoever he wants tho. That should be illegal.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Ovoidhunter]
    #26650562 - 05/05/20 12:05 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

That would take lobotomizing everyone.  How are you going to stop all speech?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26650578 - 05/05/20 12:09 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

You've both lost the fundamental understanding of the whole argument.  Enlil claimed "private censorship is actually increasing freedom of speech".

I AGREE with both of you that the Government can't censor speech, and that only private entities can.

Where I disagree is that when private entities censor conent, that somehow increases freedom of speech.  Sure, it increases freedom for the private entity, but it doesn't increase freedom overall.  That part is nonsense, and isn't yet supported by scholarly evidence.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26650584 - 05/05/20 12:11 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Then I guess you're just going to believe what you believe and that's it.:shrug:


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 3
    #26650597 - 05/05/20 12:14 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

How does it decrease free speech?  You’ve been allowed to say what you want and the platform has had its say as well. Everyone has exercised their right to free speech like some say what you want orgy.  The site has also enacted the right to protect itself by removing whatever offensive comment that’s been posted, exercising even more freedoms.

I don’t see where anything has been taken away. There’s liberties being spread all over here. Every party involved has been afforded the freedom to govern themselves accordingly.


--------------------
:nyan: <-- Clicky Clicky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26650598 - 05/05/20 12:15 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

No, it seems like the opposite.  You're just going to believe what you believe and that's it.

You believe censorship increases freedom of speech.
I believe censorship increases freedom of speech only for the entity hosing the speech, but decreases it overall.

Still waiting for that scholarly article with an actual statement that 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: ShroomerInTheRye]
    #26650602 - 05/05/20 12:17 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

ShroomerInTheRye said:
How does it decrease free speech?  You’ve been allowed to say what you want and the platform has had its say as well.



If my content is censored, that's NOT freedom of speech to me.

Again, I get that the host has freedom to delete content, but that's not increasing free speech.

Quote:

ShroomerInTheRye said:
I don’t see where anything has been taken away.



You don't see how censorship takes anything away???


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 3
    #26650603 - 05/05/20 12:18 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

You want more articles that you won't understand?  Sorry, dude...this has become pointless.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26650610 - 05/05/20 12:22 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Oh, I understand just fine, and I even quoted a piece from the article saying private entities aren't subject to the first amendment free speech rights, only state actors are (which you actually agreed with).

You're basically just saying "I'm koods, King of Make Believe!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26650614 - 05/05/20 12:23 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Lol, okay dude.  Enjoy your day.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26650615 - 05/05/20 12:24 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Then I guess you're just going to believe what you believe and that's it.:shrug:



:cookiemonster:

What evidence have you presented to back your claim?  I’m pretty open minded, but you don’t argue effectively without backing up your stance. Here, articles were provided, and despite the plain English they’re written in, the point has not been proven to you.

Please, back up your argument and I’m willing to approach it with an open mind.


--------------------
:nyan: <-- Clicky Clicky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: ShroomerInTheRye]
    #26650655 - 05/05/20 12:37 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

I'm not sure if you get the argument.  It's not whether private entities have a right to delete content (they do), it's whether "private censorship is actually increasing freedom of speech" as Enlil claimed.

I agree that private entities have a right to delete whatever content they like, and I even agree that increases their own freedom, but I don't understand how censorship increases freedom of speech overall.

Enlil's argument was that by giving entities the freedom to delete content, they are increasing that entities freedom of speech.  I can even agree with that.  But at the same time, someone else is having their content censored; that DECREASES their freedom of speech.  Overall, it's net neutral (at best) to me (if you consider censorship 'freedom of speech' to the person doing the censoring).

Does that make sense so far?


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26650678 - 05/05/20 12:46 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

You’ve been allowed to say what you want. The platform is allowed to delete it. That’s twice the freedom of speech. At no point did the government come in and censor anyone. You have the freedom then to complain about it on the platform, further using your free speech rights. Triple free speech.

If your deleted opinion matters that much, you are free to start your own platform and tailor your message as you see fit without fear that the government will take down your message. That’s exercising your free speech rights to their fullest.

The only way freedom of speech decreases here is if the government steps in and tells you that you can’t say something.


--------------------
:nyan: <-- Clicky Clicky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: ShroomerInTheRye]
    #26650700 - 05/05/20 12:53 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

I never said the Government was censoring anything.

If my content is censored/deleted, that's not free speech to me.  You think it's "twice the freedom of speech".  This is where we disagree.


Any thoughts from others here if censorship is 'twice the freedom'?


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26650702 - 05/05/20 12:53 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

It seems like the confusion here is that you're applying the 1st Amendment to everyone equally while it only applies to the government and its reach.


--------------------
:nyan: <-- Clicky Clicky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: ShroomerInTheRye]
    #26650714 - 05/05/20 12:59 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

I AGREE the 1st Amendment only applies to the government and its reach.  That's what I quoted from you article, and what you highlighted after I quoted it.

People don't get 1st Amendment protections here on the shroomery, and therefore the shroomery has a right to censor content.  Again, that's freedom for the shroomery, but not the people who get censored.

I'm not even arguing the shroomery shouldn't have the freedom to delete things, I'm arguing that's not an increase in net freedom of speech as stated in the original claim.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKwyjibo
Stranger

Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,276
Loc: California Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 3 minutes
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26650741 - 05/05/20 01:09 PM (4 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
No, it seems like the opposite.  You're just going to believe what you believe and that's it.

You believe censorship increases freedom of speech.
I believe censorship increases freedom of speech only for the entity hosing the speech, but decreases it overall.

Still waiting for that scholarly article with an actual statement that censorship increases freedom of speech...



With or without the shroomery you have the same amount of free speech. The owners of the shroomery on the other hand have the shroomery as an extra avenue for their free speech which means overall there’s an increase.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Advice for the Democratic party Phred 2,315 15 11/08/04 06:00 AM
by Mushmonkey
* Just an email about the Democratic party Dont Read! Anonymous 612 2 04/22/03 02:35 PM
by hongomon
* Sen John Kerry statement=Fall of the democratic party
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 3,671 47 04/06/03 06:46 PM
by Anonymous
* Is the Democrat party dead?
( 1 2 all )
thieverycorp 2,524 39 11/07/06 11:45 PM
by Ravus
* An experiment for the Democratic party
( 1 2 all )
rommstein2001 2,120 30 11/08/03 01:57 PM
by Evolving
* A List of the Many Political Parties lonestar2004 1,211 0 08/25/05 01:57 PM
by lonestar2004
* How can anyone vote for a Democrat? luvdemshrooms 2,098 9 07/16/02 02:49 PM
by I_Fart_Blue
* Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values
( 1 2 all )
Great_Satan 2,170 23 12/18/04 10:41 PM
by Annapurna1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
19,969 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.