|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 18,032
Last seen: 5 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Sulfurshelfsean] 1
#28125895 - 01/05/23 01:58 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think the FBI should just publicly tweet requests at Elon until their mind juju forces him to ban himself from the platform.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Sulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes


Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 4,245
Last seen: 5 hours, 5 minutes
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Kickle]
#28125906 - 01/05/23 02:07 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sure that when the FBI shoots something embarrassing about him a across his desk he's more than fine with censoring it just like all those journalists he banned who did stories about the elonplane kid.
--------------------
   Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 18,032
Last seen: 5 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Sulfurshelfsean]
#28125923 - 01/05/23 02:17 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Nothing left to do but crack jokes and laugh at the ridiculousness. The hand has been shown. And shown. And shown. And he just keeps bluffing like one of these times it'll work to bring in the pot which can save Twitter.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: christopera]
#28125957 - 01/05/23 02:34 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
christopera said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
christopera said: He was advocating for an obvious first amendment violation. As dumb arguments go, it's not a surprise that Trump made it.
How is saying government shouldn't repress speech a first amendment violation?
Come on dude.
"we will strongly regulate, or close them down"
Did you read the tweet?
Yes, did you?
Quote:
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.
The choice is for Social Media Platforms not to silence voices, or to be closed down.
I can agree with that! You keep arguing for censorship.
-------------------- 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.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Sulfurshelfsean]
#28125963 - 01/05/23 02:37 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sulfurshelfsean said: So he would force Twitter and truth social to platform left leaning posts?
Exactly. Though I suspect he was referring to the largest Social Media Platforms that aren't based on a limited set of topics.
-------------------- 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.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#28126039 - 01/05/23 03:40 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Kizzle said:

Exactly. Trump wanted to pass a law enforcing the Bantam Books v. Sullivan decision that the government can't coerce companies to repress speech.

Beautiful!
It's also as if you don't expect us to look this stuff up - for the curious: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/58/
Quote:
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
No. 118
Argued December 3, 1962
Decided February 18,1963
372 U.S. 58
Syllabus
The Rhode Island Legislature created a Commission
"to educate the public concerning any book . . . or other thing containing obscene, indecent or impure language, or manifestly tending to the corruption of the youth as defined [in other sections] and to investigate and recommend the prosecution of all violations of said sections."
The Commission's practice was to notify a distributor that certain books or magazines distributed by him had been reviewed by the Commission and had been declared by a majority of its members to be objectionable for sale, distribution or display to youths under 18 years of age. Such notices requested the distributor's "cooperation," and advised him that copies of the lists of "objectionable" publications were circulated to local police departments, and that it was the Commission's duty to recommend prosecution of purveyors of obscenity. Four out-of-state publishers of books widely distributed in the State sued in a Rhode Island court for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the law and the practices thereunder were unconstitutional. The court found that the effect of the Commission's notices was to intimidate distributors and retailers and that they had resulted in the suppression of the sale of the books listed. In this Court, the State Attorney General conceded that the notices listed several publications that were not obscene within this Court's definition of the term.
Held: The system of informal censorship disclosed by this record violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 372 U. S. 59-72.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment requires that regulation by the States of obscenity conform to procedures that will ensure against the curtailment of constitutionally protected expression, which is often separated from obscenity only by a dim and uncertain line. Pp. 372 U. S. 65-66.
(b) Although the Rhode Island Commission is limited to informal sanctions, the record amply demonstrates that it deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable," and succeeded in its aim. Pp. 372 U. S. 66-67.
(c) The acts and practices of the members and Executive Secretary of the Commission were performed under color of state law,
Page 372 U. S. 59
and so constituted acts of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 372 U. S. 68.
(d) The Commission's practice provides no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene and constitutionally protected matter, and it is a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon criminal sanctions, which may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process. Pp. 372 U. S. 68-70
(e) What Rhode Island has done, in fact, has been to subject the distribution of publications to a system of prior administrative restraints without any provision for notice and hearing before publications are listed as "objectionable" and without any provision for judicial review of the Commission's determination that such publications are "objectionable." Pp. 372 U. S. 70-72.
Reversed and cause remanded.
--------------------
|
Sulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes


Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 4,245
Last seen: 5 hours, 5 minutes
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#28126056 - 01/05/23 03:51 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Sulfurshelfsean said: So he would force Twitter and truth social to platform left leaning posts?
Exactly. Though I suspect he was referring to the largest Social Media Platforms that aren't based on a limited set of topics.
So you could still limit speech that wasn't in the criteria of the social media platform? And why does it matter how large 5/the platform is?
--------------------
   Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 6 minutes, 13 seconds
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#28126098 - 01/05/23 04:02 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly.
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: Mo Freedom
Trump was saying Social Media Platforms should be regulated so they don't silence voices.
Explain to me how this would work. Isn't that exactly the same thing as the case law of Bantam Books v. Sullivan, you posted above?
Exactly. Trump wanted to pass a law enforcing the Bantam Books v. Sullivan decision that the government can't coerce companies to repress speech.
So Trump wants to pass a law banning social media establishments from censoring political speech even though the case you presented was based upon the government censoring speech?
Edited by SirTripAlot (01/05/23 04:13 PM)
|
Kizzle
Misanthrope


Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Sulfurshelfsean]
#28126115 - 01/05/23 04:10 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
On Elon Musk's Twitter:
- Slurs against Black people have tripled - Slurs against women are up 33% - Slurs against Jewish people are up 61% - And slurs against gay men are up 58%
These numbers are abysmal – and unacceptable.
Today, @RepMarkTakano and I are demanding action.
Quote:
We are deeply concerned about the recent rise in hate speech on Twitter. Analysis by independent researchers indicates Twitter has become an increasingly toxic place for our constituents, and we are reaching out to you to understand the actions Twitter is taking to combat this increase in harmful content.
Stuff like this is not coercion 
People have a right to criticize businesses and they don't lose that right when they're elected to an office.
As for the government making laws and regulations, they could be considered coercive in nature but it's a legitimate form of coercion that's fundamental to our society. If Trump wants to pretend he's some sort of leader and say he's going to somehow implement unconstitutional laws allowing the government to control conversations on social media no one is stopping him from saying it but where's the criticism from all the people that claim to despise this?
I'm not ok with the government forcing platforms to remove legal speech. However platforms can decide what content they want to allow and people can criticize them for their decisions, ask questions, and make suggestions or even demands. Don't mistake persuasion for coercion. It's every person's right to try to persuade others.
--------------------
Edited by Kizzle (01/06/23 01:06 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#28126806 - 01/06/23 01:43 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:

Beautiful!
It's also as if you don't expect us to look this stuff up - for the curious: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/58/
I hoped you guys would look this up, though I didn't expect you to.
The US Supreme Court did indeed reverse the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court that it was ok to censor content.
I believe this summary is easier to understand: Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)
-------------------- 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.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Sulfurshelfsean] 1
#28126807 - 01/06/23 01:49 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sulfurshelfsean said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Sulfurshelfsean said: So he would force Twitter and truth social to platform left leaning posts?
Exactly. Though I suspect he was referring to the largest Social Media Platforms that aren't based on a limited set of topics.
So you could still limit speech that wasn't in the criteria of the social media platform? And why does it matter how large 5/the platform is?
I don't know for certain what Trump's intent was other than to require Social Media Platforms not to silence voices.
If I start a website to discuss cute pets, I should probably have a right to censor content that isn't about cute pets. If I start a website for people to discuss whatever they like, censorship shouldn't be coerced by the government.
-------------------- 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.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#28126811 - 01/06/23 01:51 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: So Trump wants to pass a law banning social media establishments from censoring political speech even though the case you presented was based upon the government censoring speech?
The case I presented said the government doesn't have the right to coerce censorship.
-------------------- 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.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Kizzle]
#28126814 - 01/06/23 01:58 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kizzle said: People have a right to criticize businesses and they don't lose that right when they're elected to an office.
Clearly. But that's not the issue here.
Quote:
Kizzle said: As for the government making laws and regulations, they could be considered coercive in nature but it's a legitimate form of coercion that's fundamental to our society.
If you're right, then such a law needs to be passed before the government steps in and tells Twitter what to censor.
Quote:
Kizzle said: If Trump wants to pretend he's some sort of leader and say he's going to somehow implement unconstitutional laws allowing the government to control conversations on social media no one is stopping him from saying it but where's the criticism from all the people that claim to despise this?
Why should people criticize Trump for wanting free speech?
Quote:
Kizzle said: I'm not ok with the government forcing platforms to remove legal speech.
We're aligned. 
Quote:
Kizzle said: However platforms can decide what content they want to allow and people can criticize them for their decisions, ask questions, and make suggestions or even demands.
That's exactly what's happening.
-------------------- 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.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 6 minutes, 13 seconds
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#28126878 - 01/06/23 05:40 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: So Trump wants to pass a law banning social media establishments from censoring political speech even though the case you presented was based upon the government censoring speech?
The case I presented said the government doesn't have the right to coerce censorship.
But that's precisely what you want the government to enact against social media companies.
-------------------- “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.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (01/06/23 06:53 AM)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#28126945 - 01/06/23 07:26 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:

Beautiful!
It's also as if you don't expect us to look this stuff up - for the curious: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/58/
I hoped you guys would look this up, though I didn't expect you to.
The US Supreme Court did indeed reverse the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court that it was ok to censor content.
I believe this summary is easier to understand: Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)
I had no trouble understanding the decision itself - your representation of the decision is wrong. Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the decision; but not because it's 'not ok to censor content' as you put forth - rather, the decision was reversed because the state provided "no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene and constitutionally protected matter" in using a "system of prior administrative restraints without any provision for notice and hearing before publications are listed as 'objectionable' and without any provision for judicial review of the Commission's determination that such publications are 'objectionable.'"
I feel the simplest way to illustrate this distinction is by pointing out that the Supreme Court recommended criminal obscenity trials as the preferable method of regulation, because criminal sanctions "may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process." The decision isn't that the State must refrain from censorship - it's that the State must provide baked-in procedural safeguards to the process.
With this correct understanding of the court decision now before us, I can see several significant differences in what happened at Twitter: (1) there is no threat of prosecution or penalty being made, (2) there exists the potential for judicial review when dealing with State agencies like the DHS and FBI, and most importantly (3) there are no aggrieved parties claiming coercion.
If anyone at Twitter felt coerced by the State, it's on them to bring forth the complaint. Considering Twitter as a company has brought freedom of expression arguments to courts in the past, and considering US organizations exist that will even defend nazis when it comes to the 1st Amendment, the lack of aggrieved parties is much more likely to reflect an absence of coercion than anything more sinister. If there was such a complaint, I would give their claim the benefit of the doubt - but it's not your role to claim other people were coerced into censorship.
Once again, we've arrived at my favourite refrain: was your misinterpretation the result of ignorance of the material, or an intentional lie?
--------------------
|
mushboy
modboy



Registered: 04/24/05
Posts: 33,062
Loc: where?
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#28126961 - 01/06/23 07:51 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: ..or an intentional lie?
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: SirTripAlot]
#28126973 - 01/06/23 08:08 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The government coerces a lot things, more than we could ever list. For me the two main points are two ways of saying the same thing. First, private media can choose their own viewpoints and policies. Two, if Twitter was coerced by the government, they went along with it as a business decision.
Amazon is the second biggest employer in the country. They don't hire anyone who is undocumented. They don't have that policy because they're more law abiding. They play nice with the feds because of the tax breaks they receive.
Whatever incentives or disincentives are involved, private companies deal with them as business decisions.
That's why Elon Musk's little crusade for one version of free speech was such a disaster and a perplexing business decision. He's not Rupert Murdoch who profits from being right-wing. His main company Tesla has 63,000 customers cancelling their orders for the Tesla 3 model, and the market price for used Tesla's dropped by 20% since he acquired Twitter and all the attendant bad publicity. This is while other used car prices are sky high. Unlike Tesla's plummeting stock, Musk owns Twitter outright, so he basically answers to no one. But the customers for his expensive EVs are mainly liberals. I don't think his rocket ship company is a big profit maker, but it made him look cool. OK, he's a guy who can afford to lose a trillion dollars, but the self-damage to his reputation is looking permanent.
If he had it to do all over again, does anybody think he would?
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 24 minutes, 12 seconds
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Brian Jones]
#28127090 - 01/06/23 09:55 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty sure he's been regretting his decision since a few days after he announced it, considering he went to court to try and back out of the purchase.
This feels a lot like one of those times you get drunk and make some stupid decisions and the next day you're just like "fuuuuuuck, why'd I do that" except the tab is now 200B$ and counting.
I think another aspect is the psychology of the kind of person who ends up as a CEO. They are the kind of people that just do not back down. They double down and power through, which works very well on less confident people.
Of course, the more people you do it to at once, the more likely there is someone in that group just like them, who is willing to say damn the torpedoes.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: SirTripAlot]
#28127188 - 01/06/23 11:21 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: But that's precisely what you want the government to enact against social media companies.
???
I don't want Social Media Platforms to censor content.
-------------------- 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.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 34 minutes, 35 seconds
|
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#28127190 - 01/06/23 11:24 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Right you just want the government to shut down social media sites if they don’t platform speech you want platformed and platform speech you don’t want platformed. Like they do in Russia.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
|