The other day I read a post from Melanie, over at Sparks From a Combustible Mind, which she wrote in response to a post from Sam “Goldie” Kirk at The Daily Flabbergast, which was titled, “Free Speech — For Me But Not For You.”
I read Melanie’s response and then I read the original post from this Sam “Goldie” person that prompted Melanie’s response. I suspect that my political perspectives are quite different from Goldie’s, a blogger whose posts I’d never read before. But I found her — at least I think Goldie is a her — interesting, especially since my weekly Provocative Question just last week asked, “Do you think Donald Trump should be allowed back on social media now that he’s no longer in office?”
In her post, Goldie asked four provocative questions about free speech:
- Do you think freedom of speech is in jeopardy?
- What do you think about people being banned on social media?
- Do you see blocks as helpful or unnecessary?
- What actions do you take to be able to continue sharing your opinions?
I answered her questions in a comment I left on her post:
Do you think freedom of speech is in jeopardy?
No. Freedom of speech, as long as it does not include hate speech, inciting or instigating violence, or being abusive, is not in jeopardy. It’s against the law to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and that is essentially what Donald Trump has been doing since even before the election.
What do you think about people being banned on social media?
Most social media sites publish Terms of Service (TOS), and most such sites include in their TOS prohibitions against hate speech, inciting or instigating violence, or being abusive. Anyone who continually violates these TOS, as Donald Trump has, should be banned from using the site, be they just ordinary people like you and me, or heads of state.
Do you see blocks as helpful or unnecessary?
Because of my answers to the first two questions, I consider them to be appropriate.
What actions do you take to be able to continue sharing your opinions?
I’m not on Twitter, Facebook, or any other of the typical social media sites. I am on WordPress and I have never felt constrained when it comes to sharing my opinions and perspectives. But I don’t use hate speech in my posts, nor do I promote, incite, or instigate violence. So I’m good on that count.
*****
After reading my comment, Goldie asked four follow-up questions, which I thought, rather than responding in a comment, I’d do so in my own post. So here are her questions and my answers:
What do you consider “hate speech?” When can something be described as inciting violence?
Hate speech is any kind of communication in speech, writing, or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are. In other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender, or other identity factor.
As to inciting violence, “imminent lawless action” is a standard currently used to define what constitutes a “clear and present danger.” So if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely, that is inciting violence.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Do you see the Terms and Conditions as black and white rules, or with a lot of gray area?
First of all, I will admit that almost nobody actually reads the social media sites’ Terms of Service. That said, I looked up the Twitter TOS regarding hate speech and violence, respectively:
You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.
You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Healthy conversation is only possible when people feel safe from abuse and don’t resort to using violent language. For this reason, we have a policy against threatening violence on Twitter.
Are these TOS rules black and white, or with a lot of gray areas? You tell me.
Do you yourself block others? Why/why not?
No, the only sites I block are those that are purveyors of spam. I do not block others whose opinions, views, or perspectives are different from my own.
Why is it that you limit your social media use to only WP?
I never saw much point to Twitter and it has become, from what I’ve read about it, a pretty vile place. I do have Facebook and Instagram accounts, but I never post anything on them and keep them active only to see pictures and updates that my now adult kids post to Facebook and Instagram. WordPress keeps me busy.
Okay, folks, if anyone else would like to respond to Goldie’s questions — either her original freedom of speech questions or the ones she posed to me in response to my comment on her original post, have a go at it. You can comment here, write you own post and link back to this one. And you might also wish to link back to Goldie’s original post here.
This, That, and the Other 
I think your responses are well written and I totally agree. I do have a Twitter account and I use it to post info or blogs once in a while, just to hope more people see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Funnily enough, another blogger tackled this one in the last 24 hours, too. (https://texas-writer74.com/?p=1512) I do not get into the issue of free speech, but I did disagree that this was to do with free speech. It is a spat between Trump and Twitter. TYrump is free to use any other social media platform, or a WordPress blog, or as a last resort, his own web site, to put his views across. His freedom to speak has not been denied.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Using his right of free speech since 1983, Larry Flynt has sent the monthly magazine he founded, Hustler, to each and every member of Congress.
LikeLiked by 3 people
😂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh… I did it again, Fandango. I used a word involving p*rn*graphy; it went to trash a few minutes ago.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep, I have “porn” and “pornography” as a trigger words to send comments to trash.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If he sent it to their official offices, I’d suppose he could get away with that even if they don’t like that he could do it. I remember seeing him coming out the winner from a court case; not sure if it pertained to that circumstance. As for me, I once found a nearly pornographic (or pornograhic depending on one’s point of view) catalog of lingerie, in my personal home mail box, with bondage themes. I wrote to the purveyors that if they continued sending it to me I’d take legal action. They quit immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quote: I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future
2:16 PM · Nov 6, 2020
Receipts are ordinary and safe behavior.
Not being accountable doesn’t fit as anyone’s “right.”
A different example is that someone archived more than ninety percent of Parler posts. They count as evidence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The November concern, tweeted by Alexandria, had mainly do with perceiving that individuals would delete their own posted behavior and statements — in order to gaslight (fool) the public.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s my responses to those newest questions: https://sparksfromacombustiblemind.com/2021/01/26/four-more-to-add-to-the-freedom-of-speech-thread/
Whew. This is really something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good stuff Fandango. WP is a good place so far as I can see, I dropped FB about 18 months ago because it is vacuous, Twitter suits me because I can talk about records.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting conversation. I agree with you totally. My own experience with one type of inflammatory freedom of speech were the drawings/ cartoons some sites encouraged about prophet Mohammad( peace be upon him). That incited a lot of hate and violence and it was totally a useless exercise. Why try to provoke people by doing something that hurts their feelings?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I do blame social media for this problem THEY created by not enforcing their own TOS from the start and consistently. Remember when gamer guys were horrible to women and their attacks and doxxing didn’t get them banned? There should have been much more banning all along, but SM was too greedy to do it. Bullies got the idea that anything goes and rolled with it. Then when the biggest bully of all was FINALLY given consequences, people began to whine it wasn’t fair. It certainly is fair and long overdue!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree. What’s the point of having a TOS if it’s not applied consistently and equitably.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I do not think freedom of speech is in jeopardy. It could be, if we don’t continually address the challenges we face. I did see it as being in jeopardy when the former president was in power. Like an autocrat, he saw criticism (even true statements) as something that should be punished as criminality; criticism of him, specifically, mind you (he didn’t really care about anyone else).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, and that is the beauty of free speech for all. However, who and what determine “hate speech”? What some may view as “hate speech” is nothing more than just a difference of opinion. When you start attacking people’s right to free speech, no matter who they are and what they say, you are entering into a very dark and dangerous world because it will never stop until EVERYONE has lost their rights to free speech. I would much rather allow someone to voice their opinions and speak their minds, even if I completely disagree with them and even hate what they have to say than to not allow them that right. Free speech is allowed to EVERYONE in the 1st Amendment, as long it is peacefully done. Just because you disagree with or hate or are even offended by something that someone says does not mean they do not have the right to say those things. It is only once those words become actions that incite violence when those words are no longer allowed. Actions have always spoken louder than words, and it is actions that are punishable, NOT words.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So… the fact that we currently say (and enforce) that you aren’t to shout fire (especially if there is no fire) in a crowded venue and create the likelihood of trampling or, at least, panic: … no matter who they are and what they say, you are entering into a very dark and dangerous world because it will never stop until EVERYONE has lost their rights to free speech.
I disagree with that.
I also wonder if you agree, or is it a dismissible opinion, that Trump, too, is wrong to wish for eliminating free speech?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can you say it? Yes. Should you say it? NO. There is a big difference. There are always consequences to both our actions and our words.
How does Trump want to end free speech? He is a big proponent of free speech.
LikeLike
How does Trump want to end free speech? He is a big proponent of free speech.
So. It is fact, and not opinion, that he made many statements against free speech.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So you see I’m not being partisan about this, I will share an article that someone used in order to lament that Biden is President and potentially influenced by people like AOC.
That person said: “During Trump’s reign, your speech wasn’t restrained.”
https://reason.com/2021/01/14/aoc-rein-in-our-media-literacy-trump-capitol-rots/
I quoted from the article the characterization that the posting person left out: Users have every right to criticize these decisions, but ultimately Twitter and Facebook are private companies with the right to set their own moderation policies. They can prohibit speech they define as misinformation. Congress can’t. In suggesting a role for the government to regulate the media’s speech, AOC is echoing comments made by numerous right-wing figures—most notably President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called for changing libel laws to make it easier for maligned officials to sue the press. Trump has also made threats against newspapers for covering his presidency….
[ This is only part of the record on what he wanted to suppress; it wasn’t only “the press” or media. ]
Now, we shall see, over time, if she actually means that she wants to regulate the media’s speech; there is another topic, that people who are concerned about free speech and the maintenance of privacy rather than a surveillance state would be interested in, where she had to learn some intricacies before she came out on the side of not implementing new terror laws (on a domestic level).
LikeLiked by 1 person
None that I’ve heard. In fact, I have only heard the opposite. He is all about free speech. Please give me some examples.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was all over the news (the real news); it’s not a CNBC exclusive or anything like that.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/29/why-trump-is-tying-section-230-to-stimulus-checks-defense-bill.html
…
PUBLISHED TUE, DEC 29 2020
4:14 PM EST
UPDATED TUE, DEC 29 2020
6:04 PM EST
….
President Donald Trump is pressuring his Republican allies over a law that has protected social media companies for decades.
In his final weeks in office, Trump has launched a full-bore attack on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the 1996 law that shields tech companies from being held liable for what users post on their platforms.
Trump wants Section 230 gone. He has tied the issue to the passage of a crucial annual defense spending bill and, more recently, to the prospect of approving an increase in coronavirus relief checks to $2,000 from $600.
“Unless Republicans have a death wish, and it is also the right thing to do, they must approve the $2000 payments ASAP. $600 IS NOT ENOUGH!” Trump tweeted Tuesday.
“Also, get rid of Section 230 – Don’t let Big Tech steal our Country, and don’t let the Democrats steal the Presidential Election. Get tough!” he wrote.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle — including President-elect Joe Biden — have voiced complaints about Section 230, and some have taken steps toward reforming the provision. But there’s little appetite on Capitol Hill for repealing it outright, much less for slipping such a repeal into the $740 billion defense bill or the latest pandemic relief legislation.
However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appears to have taken heed of Trump’s demands.
On Tuesday afternoon, McConnell introduced a bill that would directly couple an increase in stimulus checks with a repeal of Section 230. That bill would also form a bipartisan commission to study the “integrity and administration” of the 2020 election, which Trump has falsely insisted he won over Biden.
McConnell’s bill is highly unlikely to reach the 60-vote threshold required to pass in the Senate. But its failure could be a win for Republican lawmakers, many of whom had opposed a boost in stimulus checks and were caught off-guard by Trump’s late-stage demand.
Here’s what to know about Section 230 and where it stands:
………………………………………….. [the article is much longer]
LikeLiked by 1 person
And what is the real news? That is an interesting question. the biggest problem we have today is there are NO shared facts. All the MSM stations report opinion pieces, and only give a portion of the story. The best way to really get to know what’s going on is to watch/listen to multiple sources from all over the world.
LikeLike
I was trying to be kind to you, Jeanne. You might not have known because you think you are taking in news while your source(s) are misleading or want their audience(s) ignorant. You are clearly not taking in enough news sources if you don’t know what is happening on the floor of the Senate. All I meant by real news is that it’s not good enough call oneself “news” — real news wouldn’t leave out what Trump and McConnel actually did (putting forth demands, proposals and legislation) or tried to do (which they could be not in full agreement upon but nevertheless led to real life things that happened in our governmental proceedings) — about which you were not aware. It would also have been possible that you simply forgot about this recent widely-reported drama (with a last-minute hold-up), but you have ruled that out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe you should try taking in other sources. You are the one who is NOT getting all the information. I get information from all over the world. For example, if the only “news” sources people listen to are the MSM, they are going to get the exact same narrative on every channel. It’s like they are all following a script. The words are verbatim on every channel. If you expand your resources, you’ll find there is so much more than what is being discussed on the MSM, and you will have a very different story. But you are just exemplifying my point. The current trend is in order to have “unity” everyone who disagrees needs to just “shut up and comply” and it is “my way or the highway”. This is very dangerous. The MSM, and everyone on the Left is saying that 75+ million Americans “need to be reprogrammed” because we do not agree with the Left’s policies. That is very dangerous indeed. That is exactly what Hitler did in the late 1930’s in Germany. It is perfectly OK and healthy for people to disagree and exchange ideas. That is how we learn. That is how we grow. It’s called civil discourse.
LikeLike
Jeanne, I’m very concerned about you. You asked for examples of Trump being against free speech. There are many examples of different instances. I know not everyone has time to actually listen to him speak — to have actually listened for over five years (and to be aware of how he inserted himself into politics and breaking laws even before the year 2000). In order to have an online discussion, it is not really possible to give every example of what we are discussing (much less all the dreadful things he has done). Additionally, to give an example should not require a hundred sources. [I’ve now given plural examples in this comments section (as you have seen below).] The source I posted for the 230 matter is not the source where I originally got the information, but it was sufficient; it’s not a bad article, and the information shows you what the man formerly heading Senate functions did to please the former president.
It’s not clear whether you are seriously complaining that there is no shared factual information or whether your goal (or the goal of those who’ve captured your mind) is to get people to think there is no factual information. Based on what you’ve said, so far, the latter is winning with you (although not to your benefit).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t be. I am more concerned about you and what your thoughts and ideas are doing to our country, and to freedoms all over the world. You have been drinking way to much of the Blue Kool-aid. It’s obvious we have VERY different thoughts and ideas, so let’s just end it here, once and for all.
LikeLike
Jeanne, you’re talking to someone who is 100% for the first amendment.
I’m curious whether you think we are basically living in a simulation or if you, rather, think we really have a House of Representatives and something we call the Senate — where activity takes place. Further, I’m wondering (because of your response concerning Khashoggi and Trump and the prince in Saudi Arabia below) whether you think it makes sense that if Biden has done a “ton” of stuff [no sources at all given by you] that then, in your estimation, it is made false that examples pertaining to Trump reflect upon himself. Not being primarily partisan involves recognizing facts and working toward values. Finally, you’ve transgressed in your communication what you seem to have proposed. If it is wrong to admonish or chastise someone for impressing upon a crowd that they should stampede to the exits when there is really no threat to safety, why is it okay or unremarkable for the Donald to sue people (from lowly individuals to organizations of press) for saying things he doesn’t like?
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point is, Jeanne, that you’re ready with accusations but not with consistency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Free speech is not the same as insults and lies nor is it the same as incitement to violence or threats. It doesn’t include defamation of goods or persons, either. The assumption was made by the writers of the constitution that people had the good sense to NOT repeat lies and hatred, that civility would prevail. It hasn’t prevailed.
Words are indeed punishable and always have been. You are NOT free to say whatever you want, whether or not it’s true or fake, defamatory or libelous. The problem is that when the wealthy and powerful do this, we littler folks don’t have the lawyers or the money to fight back. They win by virtue of having more money than most of us can even imagine. We are like mosquitoes to the powerful big mouths. We are literally nothing and they treat us like nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You still have NOT given me any examples that Trump does NOT believe in free speech. And You are wrong, yet again. WHO gets to determine what is a lie or what is the truth? Who gets to determine what is true or fake, or defamatory or libelous? Those are subjective and will be different for everyone. If I say something you don’t believe in, you are going to say it is a lie, even though I know for a fact it is the truth. Who gets to determine what is an insult or an incitement to violence? We live in such a divided world that people cannot have differences of opinions any more, and that is both very sad and very dangerous. There is NEVER just one version of the truth. Every story has two sides and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than you give them credit for. They were brilliant, and I am pretty sure they did think of all this stuff. People have been spinning the truth and telling lies since the beginning of time, and will continue to do do for time immortal.
If you think free speech is so bad, and that life here in America, with our freedoms is so bad, go pick any country of your choice that does not allow it and live there for a minimum of six months, then come back and tell me how bad things are here. I am guessing you will have a completely different take on things.
LikeLike
You mean lying and threatening to sue those who tell the truth doesn’t count? Exactly what DOES count?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Like Fabebook, Google, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Apple? They don’t tell the truth. In fact just the opposite. They only give THEIR versions of the truth and anything that goes against their narratives is wrong and is FAKE NEWS.
LikeLike
I don’t use any of those apps precisely because they are unmoderated and frankly, they are full of mean-spirited, evil people go there (as far as I can tell) to see how much rage they can stir up. NOT going there is a huge improvement in the quality of life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not going to continue to argue this with you. My point is EVERYONE, no matter whether or not you agree, like it, or are even offended by what they have to say, has the right to free speech, and it is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Just because someone has the right to say something does not mean they should say something. Both words and actions have consequences.
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. Arguably, the First Amendment is also the most important to the maintenance of a democratic government. … The freedoms of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government and seek redress of grievances proclaim that citizens have the right to call the government to account. The five freedoms it protects: speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Together, these five guaranteed freedoms make the people of the United States of America the freest in the world. Freedom of speech, as most of us constitutional scholars know, is embedded in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. … In fact, the First Amendment does not actually promise you the right to say whatever you want. It simply states the government can take no action that interferes with those rights. ndividuals have a First Amendment right to harass anyone they want, in the lay sense of the word “harassment” as irritating or tormenting someone, though the rights of school and college employees to do so in their professional capacities are narrower than the free speech rights of students. 1. The First Amendment. State laws meant to protect citizens from any type of verbal harassment are necessarily narrowly defined because they cannot violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting us all the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom.
LikeLike
I shared, on the twenty-fifth, this: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210120-biden-administration-to-declassify-report-about-khashoggi-murder/
Following months of investigations, it was reported that the operation [to brutally murder, by literal butchering, a journalist] was overseen by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and his intelligence chiefs, according to audio recordings obtained by Turkish intelligence.
…. Outgoing US President Donald Trump boasted of having “saved” Bin Salman from being held accountable for the killing.
Since then, there have been calls to release the classified intelligence findings and Biden has been urged to do so. The Trump administration blocked its declassification despite being legally required to release the document.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And what about all the things Biden has done? There are a ton of things.
LikeLike
You’re not paying attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Biden has been in office less than a month. You might hold off on allegations until he’s served for a while. You really need to stop watching Fox. That isn’t news. They don’t even claim that it’s news. it’s entertainment and that is how they get away with it.
The first amendment does NOT say you can say or do whatever you want. It never said that, doesn’t say that now, was never intended to say that. That may be your interpretation, but it has nothing to do with the history or reality of our constitution. You might consider reading some history. There is much to be learned from the folks who actually wrote those documents — and yes, they kept records. A LOT of records! This isn’t just “shoot’em from the hip” stuff. There’s a great deal of material on this subject and a huge amount of history, legal and otherwise.
And here it is:
“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.”
That is the ENTIRE amendment as written. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom for peaceable assembly, freedom to complain to the government. That’s the beginning, middle, and end. No freedom to lie or to jail people who tell the truth or disagree with you. No special freedom to urge violence (which is actually specifically NOT allowed). I don’t know where you think you are getting your information, but try starting with the amendment itself and stop watching Fox. That isn’t the news. It’s just their version of entertainment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Biden has been in office for 47 years and has done nothing. He is as corrupt as they come. You might actually want to check his record.
LikeLike
So all you’re really on about is partisanship. I had high hopes for you, Jeanne.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No. Just the opposite. I want us all to come together, but we are so divided I just don’t see how that is going to happen. We can not survive as a divided nation.
LikeLike
So you’re okay with people directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease? You think that merely expressing a harmless opinion? You’re okay with someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater?
Free speech should be protected, but there have to be limits. At least I think so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No I am NOT OK with those things, yet President Biden is doing just that and he always has. Go back and listen to his own speeches through time. He has said many, many racist things, and now, if you are a Conservative, or a Religious person, or white, basically you are treated like a 2nd class citizen. His whole equity act is VERY racist and discriminatory. Not to mention that he is a senile old man who doesn’t even know where or who he is most of the time.
Like I have said many times, just because you have the right to say something does not mean you should say something. There is a big difference. And I will defend the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech till my dying days. No one will ever be able to convince me otherwise. Freedom, in all its forms are the most basic rights we have. Take those away and we have nothing.
Once you start limiting some people and what they can and cannot say, then eventually everyone will be limited. As I have said many times, this is a very dangerous and slippery slope that will eventually kill us. So Yes, I defend my beliefs on FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE!
LikeLike
“…if you are a Conservative, or a Religious person, or white, basically you are treated like a 2nd class citizen.” Oh my goodness. What’s this world coming to when religious people in a nation where more than two-thirds of the population claim Christianity as their religion and where white people still make up the majority of the population feel so persecuted. That’s so unfair. But I guess good, white, conservative Christians want to keep the best of everything for themselves and consider equity and equality to be dirty words.
You say Biden is a senile old man? He’s compassionate, empathetic, genuine, intelligent, deliberate, and decent — all things Donald Trump was not. And he’s surrounded himself with smart, experienced qualified people in his administration, something Donald Trump did not.
I believe in free speech. But not hate speech (which is not just stating an opinion) nor violent rhetoric. That kind of speech is a line too far.
Thank you for sharing your opinions.
LikeLike
I amazed at this story I just came across. https://youtu.be/9ToOGrUQ7ME
Saagar Enjeti: Wall Street Elites … Beaten by Redditors at Their Own RIGGED Game
LikeLiked by 1 person
AOC Calls for Investigation into RobinHood after They Restrict … Trades
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reddit Outwits Wallstreet… Shorts …
[ There’s mention, near the end, of
“members only” content; no, I’m not a member. ]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also believe TOS include perpetuating lies. I was glad to see that Dominion is suing the crap out of Giuliani and Trump for defamation. It’s not only against “free speech,” but actual lying about a product — like a voting machine for example — is also defamatory and illegal. That most people are in no financial position to go to court over this kind of thing means that the rich and powerful can say whatever they want and no one has the wherewithal to fight them.
Unless we want to live in a world where ONLY might makes right — and we aren’t far from there right now — then there has to be a way for people who don’t have a troop of lawyers to fight back. As it stands now, if you have the money and the power, you literally — unless blocked — can say anything you want and no one can stop you. That’s not what freedom of speech was supposed to be about. It was meant to be free for EVERYONE. Social media has “freedom” a commercial property. It’s now a commodity.
Sadly, this is how the world has been going for a long time. Even back in the 1800s, Teddy Roosevelt won the battle against Standard Oil (and his railroads) — I think it was Rockefeller (but I could be wrong — there were a handful of the superpowers then) kept doing what he was doing and completely ignored the court’s findings. No one had the power to make him stop, just as no one except the owners of social media platforms have the power to silence the liars, haters, bigots, and the guys with all the guns.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, it wasn’t, but people never fail to take something well intentioned and turn it into something nefarious.
LikeLike
This is true about “might” seeming to make right. I try to be optimistic, but this is the main threat to freedom (the overwhelming wealth or power of some). It doesn’t even have to be very great of a disparity. Right now, I’m not rating my (excuse for a) lawyer online because she could take legal action against me for the negative and true report (and she knows I’m preoccupied with other pressing matters because she didn’t do the work for which I hired her).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for taking the time to respond to those.
ad.1. It does seem pretty clear. However, I’ve noticed that people have different definitions of the phrase “hate speech.” Maybe not different definitions, but different interpretations. You use the word “attack” in your definition and I agree. However, I’ve been accused of attacking people in the past when all I was doing was stating facts in an objective, calm manner, with no pejoratives. Have you ever felt like you’re more prone to anger at specific times? That it’s easier to go off on someone sometimes than others? I know I have. I try to control it and not take it out on someone who doesn’t deserve it. However, it’s very easy to say something that will feel like an attack on someone who is more vulnerable. You can say the same thing to different people and they will have different reactions. If you provide me with constructive criticism, I will consider taking and using it. Others will see it as an attack. Do you see how it’s not always that “clear?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
My philosophy in dealing with people who anger or upset me is to criticize the act, not the individual. For example, I won’t call someone ignorant. I’ll say “what you just said (or wrote) is ignorant.” And I never throw a person’s race, religion, or other identity factors into what I say. I am prone to anger by those who blindly support Trump or claim that he was a great president. Deep down inside I think such people are ignorant, deluded lemmings who are both naive and gullible. But I don’t say that to them to their face (or directly in writing). I state why I disagree with them and suggest that apply critical thinking rather than blind acceptance to their choices. In that respect, I’m exercising my free speech without being disrespectful or demeaning.
And then there’s Donald Trump and some of his sycophants and far-right supporters who are won’t to throwing about péjoratives and to denigrate in hateful ways those who disagree or are simply different than they are (e.g., not white, not Christian, not conservative.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there are people like you on both sides, as well as the opposites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm. Where have I heard that expression before? You know, the one about good people on both sides. Let me think….
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you disagree?
LikeLike
I don’t think ANY of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were “good people.” And I don’t think the far-right, neo-Nazi protesters in Charlottesville were “good people.” And I don’t think those who uses hate speech, promote lies, or incite violence, including Donald Trump, are “good people.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
But that’s not what I said/asked.
LikeLike
You said that there are people like me (as well as opposite of me) on both sides. Yes, that’s true, but it seems that there are more intolerant, vocal, and violent radicals on the far right these days, and they are NOT good people. And it is my belief that Donald Trump has unleashed their vitriol by making their hate, bigotry, and racism “okay” to be expressed in a hateful way and to manifest itself in violent ways. And why are the rest of the conservatives and Republicans in Congress not denouncing this hate speech and violent behaviors? They sure are quick to do so when it comes to Black Lives Matter. But when conservative, white, religious radicals are the perpetrators, the Republican silence is deafening.
And why are they not denouncing Donald Trump’s BIG LIE about having won the 2020 election in a landslide when they all KNOW that it’s not true?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for admitting that the statement was true. I appreciate it.
“It seems that there are more intolerant, vocal, and violent radicals on the far right these days…” This is your perception. It could be true or not. We do see more of what we want to see. I’m sure those that are on the other side of the fence could say the opposite.
Maybe they don’t “know?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find it interesting that, according to the FBI and DHS, white supremacists and other like-minded, far-right groups have committed a majority of the terrorist-like, and violent attacks in the United States this year. And this was before the Trump-inspired siege of the Capitol building on January 6th by the far-right, white supremacist band of MAGA-maniacs.
FBI Director Chris Wray said that racially motivated violent extremism cases account for the bulk of the bureau’s work on domestic terrorist threats and that
most of the racially motivated cases deal with white supremacists.
Testifying before Congress, Wray said, “Within the domestic terrorism bucket, the category as a whole, racially motivated violent extremism is, I think, the biggest bucket within that larger group. And within the racially motivated violent extremist bucket, people subscribing to some kind of white supremacist-type ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that.”
So there’s that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about all the black-on-black killings?
LikeLike
Oh for crissake, Sam or Goldie or whoever you are, are you serious? We’re talking about organized violence by extremist groups, white supremacist groups, by radical far-right groups, not one-on-one murders. You’re really reaching here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, we were talking about free speech and how to have a respectful conversation with people who have a different viewpoint. Then, you decided to start inserting your opinions backed by selective sentences, so I tried to play ball, which is not to your liking. I realize we’ve reached a point in the conversation where perceptions take the center stage and we definitely disagree on those. So, thank you for the conversation so far and have a great rest of your week.
LikeLike
We were actually talking about what hate speech is and what inciting violence is and you claimed that there are good people in both sides and I pointed out that most hate speech and violence in America these days comes from the right and I pointed out how that’s not just my perception but also what the FBI and the DHS acknowledge and then you ask me about black-on-black killings which has nothing to do with free speech or hate speech or the promotion of violence. But you are right in that we’ve reached an impasse because my “perceptions,” which are supported by facts, differ from yours, which seem to be based on delusions and right-wing propaganda. So yes, it’s best that we end this, since it is truly pointless to continue. Have a nice life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s about inserting your (I don’t mean you per se) views into whatever conversation you can. We were exchanging facts and then you decided to divide the talk into you vs. them. You could have said “Yes, I agree there are good and bad people on both sides.” It was a simple question and a simple answer. Instead, you started sharing things that didn’t answer the question – therefore, pushing your own agenda. So, for you, there was a link between hate speech and white supremacy violence. And for me, there was a link between violence and killings … also supported by evidence.
I like how you jump to conclusions yet refuse others to do the same.
And btw, we did meet before and discussed things (with same result).
LikeLike
I wasn’t inserting my “personal views” into the conversation. When I wrote that “…it seems that there are more intolerant, vocal, and violent radicals on the far right these days, and they are NOT good people,” you commented back that, “This is your perception. It could be true or not. We do see more of what we want to see. I’m sure those that are on the other side of the fence could say the opposite.” No, that is not JUST my perception. I was reporting back what the FBI and the DHS said with respect to right-wing, white supremacists being responsible for vast majority of domestic terrorism. Those were not just, as you called them, my “opinions backed by selective sentences.” Those were documented facts presented by those in authority and with responsibility for looking into such matters. I’m sorry that those facts don’t conform to your world view or were “not to your liking.” I am not jumping to conclusions about there being a link between hate speech and white supremacy violence. It is supported by evidence, but it’s evidence that you refuse to acknowledge or accept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The discussion was about the first amendment, not about how many intolerant people we have in the U.S. It isn’t the same subject. If you want talk about something else, you’ll have to start a new conversation elsewhere.
You are free to throw every negative comment you can think of into one heap, but all that does is make everyone angry while achieving nothing.
STAY ON TOPIC. Decide what subject you ARE discussing and if you have anything further to contribute. If not, say goodbye.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then why are you so opposed to facts reagrding black-on-black killings? They are given by reputable sources.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the fact is that there are in America black-on-black killings. There are white-on-white killings. And black-on-white and white-on-black. I’m not “opposed” to those stats or facts. How can one be “opposed to facts” anyway? Facts are facts.
But that’s totally irrelevant to what we were discussing. What does black-on-black killings have to do with free speech, hate speech, or inciting mob violence, which IS what we were talking about? Absolutely nothing. You bring up something totally unrelated when your arguments fail as a means of distracting. It’s called “what about-ism,” and it’s a popular way that Republicans use to change the subject.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t think your “white terrorism statistics” had anything to do with what we were talking about and so I made it clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem to forget — conveniently, it seems — that my “white terrorism statistics” were very much a part of what we were talking about. I posted my “white terrorism statistics” in response to YOUR comment to my statement: “It seems that there are more intolerant, vocal, and violent radicals on the far right these days.…” You responded, “This is your perception. It could be true or not.” So I commented back with my “statistics” to prove that it was not JUST my perception and that it was, in fact, true.
Your “What about all the black-on-black killings?” comment came totally out of the blue and didn’t have anything to do with what we had been talking about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your comment didn’t how statistics on violent radicals on the right vs. left. I’d like to see those.
As I said, my response was a response to yours. Was it off topic? Totally, but only after yours.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think we should just stop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“And btw, we did meet before and discussed things (with same result).”
BTW, I don’t recall that. Can you enlighten me as to when we met and discussed things with the same result?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember at least one instance on Coffee’s blog. But it doesn’t really matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a quickie question: What does “black-on-black” or, for that matter, “white-on-white” or “white-on-black” or “black-on-white” violence which has nothing to do with speech, free or otherwise, have to do with this subject? Yes, we live in a violent country. Most other countries are LESS violent than ours — even highly political ones. The kind of personal violence we have in the U.S. is rather uniquely ours, but it has absolutely zero to do with speech free or otherwise.
This is one of those “if you can’t answer the question, change the subject” things. it’s why I’d have LONG since blocked you from my site. Whoever you are, or whatever you think you are, you are not anything like rational. Because you are NOT rational and won’t answer questions with answers related to the question, nor do you believe in facts even when you saw them personally. So you’re just another one of those people looking to get a rise out of other people, exactly the type of people who are working at destroy democracy for what? For the fun of seeing the system crash? I bet you haven’t the slightest idea what comes after you crash the system. You know nothing of history, politics, or how to run a country or try to reach across your opinions and just HELP someone.
You don’t help. You make people angry and that’s mostly what you want. You don’t learn because you don’t WANT to learn. Go AWAY. If it were up to me, you’d be long since gone.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m glad you pointed that out. Did you ask Fandango the same question? He was the first one to point out “terrorist attacks” in a discussion about free speech.
You’ve blocked me? I don’t even know who you are. LOL
But thank you for letting me know that I have such a big fan out there in you.
LikeLike
Oh, God. Here we go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry?
LikeLike
We were talking about free speech and organized violence by radical far-right sympathizers, by extremist groups, white supremacist groups, and so forth. The insurrection at the Capitol was in view — as was the banning of someone, someone who got these people worked up , from Twitter and other venues. But it seems to have been moved to [who are] the “two” sides[? the part best not said out loud but kept subliminal]. I started to post, yesterday, but set it aside, that the idea moved (discernibly that is while, to be generous, we don’t know what was in mind before) to “sides” — two sides, “both.” This is extraneous, if what really is at heart is subject matter… unless the subject matter is beyond what we’re contemplating when we think we’re having a rational conversation with reasonable actors. Maybe the two sides are pro unfettered loons and anti siege of the Capitol.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, we were not talking. Fandango and I were talking. And we were talking about free speech. He brought in “radical far-right.” So, as you can see, I thought I’d bring something to the table, too.
Whether he “worked (them) up” or not, last time I checked, people had free will. People could do whatever they wanted. The only time when someone is responsible for actions of someone else is when a minor is involved. Then, a parent can be blamed. Outside of that, the responsibility it on the perpetrator, not someone who wrote a book about murder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you not believe that an outside force can inspire or motivate an individual or a group to do something or take an action that, outside of such influence, they otherwise might not? Even if that outside force is an authority figure, like, oh I don’t know, the President of the United States? So you believe that violence or bad behavior or hate only comes from within and is acted upon exclusively as a conscious choice by the individual and that no third party can incite violence, bad behavior, or hate? Do you honestly believe, therefore, that Donald Trump bears no responsibility at all for what his mob of radical supporters did on January 6th?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do I believe people get influenced? Absolutely. That’s why marketing/avertizing is so successful.
But yes, I believe individuals should be held accountable for their actions.
Knifes don’t cut fingers. People do.
If he wasn’t there being violent, then, no, I don’t think he was responsible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He was an authority figure, a man holding the highest office in the country, lying to a mob of fervent supporters, telling them that he won the election…by a landslide…and that it had been stolen from him and that in the Capitol building members of Congress were about to formally and officially accept the results of a “fraudulent” election and that they, his fervent supporters, needed to march to the Capitol and fight if they wanted to save their country. He’d been lying about the election outcome for two months and told his MAGA-maniacs to come to DC on January 6th and that it would be “wild.”
And yet you say — I assume with a straight face — that just because he didn’t physically join the mob who stormed the Capitol building after being riled up by him, that he wasn’t responsible? You are either naïve, willfully ignorant, or delusional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or maybe I’m jut responsible for my own actions and don’t need someone else to hide behind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe you are. Or maybe you’re more easily influenced than you think you are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I’m easily influenced, God help all the other fools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Bannon Humiliates Shocked Rudy Giuliani …
The actual laws and enforcements on free speech, I think, will stand for the foreseeable future for the most part),* but the intent of free speech (besides not putting too many people in jail) —that is to further constructive dialog and development of a more perfect union (for example) — ugh.
* I recently saw a real-life video of a man being stopped [for wearing his motorcycle helmet] in a large store (pretty sure it was a Wal-mart) on a work break and berated for like fifteen minutes, told not to talk (I do not mean read his Miranda rights) by a cop, then arrested for not talking.
I consider what Rudy is doing here to be hate speech and beyond.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Schmidt: The Lincoln Project is Suing Rudy Giuliani
LikeLiked by 1 person
Giuliani Reaps What He Sowed
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve added the slight emphasis in the following excerpt.
In its 276-page complaint, Smartmatic argues that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell “created a story about Smartmatic” and that “Fox joined the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its election technology and software.”
“The story turned neighbor against neighbor,” the complaint continues. “The story led a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol.”
Smartmatic, which provided services for the 2020 election in only one county, filed its suit in the tense aftermath of a vote that Mr. Trump and his supporters have repeatedly and falsely described as rigged or stolen. Right-wing outlets, including Fox and its upstart competitors Newsmax and OANN, have given significant broadcast time to those seeking to subvert the election outcome at a time of a rancorous political divide, when conspiratorial notions have moved into the mainstream.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Early Facebook Investor: Social Media “Companies Have Blood on Their Hands”
Meanwhile, from the link at the top of the opening post over this comments section:
Less than two weeks before the USA Presidential Inauguration on January 20th, 2021, Donald Trump’s personal account (@realDonaldTrump) was (permanently) banned from Twitter. Subsequently, so was Trump’s official presidential account @POTUS as well as the @WhiteHouse account (temporary bans). That caused an avalanche of bans on other platforms.
Twitch (live-streaming service) followed suit and banned Donald J. Trump. Facebook banned him for two weeks (until at least after the Inauguration Day). Trump’s Snapchat account was also locked. Shopify banned official accounts related to the sale of his merchandise. While Apple only suspended Parler (social media app popular among conservatives), Google removed it from their store entirely. YouTube took down videos discussing potential voters fraud and/or other voting irregularities. TikTok took a similar route, redirecting some of the hashtags to their Community Guidelines page for “re-education.” Reddit banned a sub-group called “r/DonaldTrump” on their site. If you do not know what Reddit is, Google comes to the rescue and tells us that it is a “network of communities based on people’s interests,” which means that average citizens gather there to talk about their opinions and world views. (For a more extensive list of tech companies and their actions, take a look here.)
I bet you have some sort of an opinion right about now. Whether you hate the guy, or love him, I urge you to put that aside, and focus on the topic at hand – freedom of speech.
Whenever I talk about our freedom of speech being impeded, someone speaks out about bullying. No, we are not fighting for the freedom to be rude to you and abuse you. We are only trying to fight for the right to express our opinions. No, freedom of speech is not an excuse to be an ass. But, just because you cannot handle the truth, it does not mean that I cannot speak it.
Let us take a closer look at Twitter’s action in order to analyze if they were right or wrong in making the decision that they had.
Twitter issued an announcement explaining their actions. Their first paragraph reads:
“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”
TWITTER.
So, it clearly states that it is not anything that he said, but how his words were being interpreted. On and OFF Twitter that led to the ban. (How does Twitter know how people interpret things in real life if they do not share it on Twitter? Scary or what?)
This further shows how no matter what we say, CAN and WILL be used against us in the court of the public eye.
Let us continue reading Twitter’s statement:
“On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:
“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences(…)
TWITTER
My own first statement: It actually makes me cry (sometimes and sometimes just tear up or simply be frustrated) to call what went on with Trump and at Parler “conservative” — indicative of some reasons it no longer makes much sense to call myself a conservative.
Plus: Yes, what the president (at the time) said on Twitter must be taken in the context of what he said and did outside of Twitter (and what he had said and tweeted and retweeted at other times on Twitter) as well as of to what that had been leading. And he was THE PRESIDENT; it’s not like he didn’t have any other way to be heard, and widely. And, besides, it is Twitter’s/Dorsey’s view that caution involves noticing these things together.
Also, I recommend anyone consider that the jerk or criminal in chief said, on the sixth, that he would “be there” with them (at the Capitol building). When he wasn’t (after talk about fighting and not being weak, trial by combat *and kicking ass), hell broke loose. He had promised, earlier, that the day would be “wild” in D.C.
* (these two were said by people on stage with him)
Note, “… clearly states that it is not anything that he said …” is not really so.
Finally, what Twitter did might’ve been cause (as asserted at the end of the first quoted paragraph); maybe not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crimes The Capitol Rioters Committed
LikeLiked by 1 person
“American Abyss”: Fascism Historian Tim Snyder on Trump’s Coup Attempt, Impeachment & What’s Next
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laura Ingraham: DEFUND the Military!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This blogger, Sam “Goldie” Kirk, accessed from the link at the top of the opening post, whose thoughts I quoted after one of the videos I’ve posted (within the same comment, January 31, 2021 / 12:40 pm) has now likened Donald Trump, when he was President of the United States, to a knife… as well as marketing or advertising:
February 7, 2021 / 11:20 am
Do I believe people get influenced? Absolutely. That’s why marketing/avertizing is so successful.
But yes, I believe individuals should be held accountable for their actions.
Knifes don’t cut fingers. People do.
If he wasn’t there being violent, then….
Donald Trump is not a person, apparently, but advertising and a knife.
This is a devised strategy. The first amendment [supposedly] means anything goes (despite the fact fraud and many other crimes involve communication), even including guns (guns don’t kill people people do being a well-worn refrain); the second amendment is [supposedly] the same as the first, a gun being obvious in its ability to convince. Those who wage this strategy might be delusional or naive or might be ignorant of the origination and goal of the degenerated supposed-logic. OR they might not be ignorant of the ruin intended.
The radical far right is not one of two things. But, if you — Sam Kirk (of the golden sky avatar) as you did — persist in wanting an answer about two sides, a polite person in good faith may assent that, sure, there are polite and reasonable Republicans {the place where, too, Trump and his sycophants reside… to the detriment and shame of one of the two major parties and to the detriment of the country as well}.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Parler v. Amazon Dies. Is Reborn [in state rather than federal court]!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I had thought about putting this in the “Who Won the Week” comments, today, but I’ll share it here; it fits [although Steve Schmidt seems to feel he has won something too]. Also, I originally saw it via YouTube; when I searched from key words memory, this platform came up top.
https://m.facebook.com/TheDamageReportTYT/videos/232139158448123/
Republican … Rep. Chip Roy runs to Nancy Pelosi crying over AOC [and] Ted Cruz. John Iadarola and Brett Erlich break it down on The Damage Report. {This is a “silly” Friday segment that I generally don’t enjoy from the show; got a bit bizarre in a different way this time, but the news aspect counts.}
LikeLiked by 1 person
View at Medium.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing this. I will have to watch that show.
LikeLike
👍🏻
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://paperkutzs.com/2021/02/06/free-speech/
LikeLike
While Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) high school curriculum is controversial, especially in rural residential settings, it is implemented and continues regardless of protests by traditionalist voices.
I feel the same attitude and policy should equally be applied to teaching students child development, even though there will be some parental protestation.
When I asked a BC Teachers Federation official over the phone two years back whether there was any child-rearing curriculum taught in any of B.C.’s school districts, he immediately replied there is not. When I asked the reason for its absence and whether it may be due to the subject matter being too controversial, he replied with a simple “Yes.”
This strongly suggests there are philosophical, thus political, obstacles to teaching students such crucial life skills as nourishingly parenting one’s children. (Is it just me, or does it not seem difficult to imagine that teaching parenting curriculum should be considered any more controversial than, say, teaching students Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity [SOGI] curriculum, beginning in Kindergarten, as is currently taught in B.C. schools?)
Put plainly, people generally do not want some stranger – and especially a government-arm entity, which includes school teachers – directly or indirectly telling them how to raise their children, regardless of the very real future mental and (by extension) physical health benefits to their own descendants.
Albeit, a knowledgeable person offered me her observation on perhaps why there are no mandatory child-rearing courses in high school: People with a dysfunctional family background do not particularly desire scholastically analyzing its intricacies; i.e. they simply don’t want to go there – even if it’s not being openly discussed.
I feel that’s definitely not sufficient reason to deny future generations their health security.
Along with their physical well-being, children’s sound psychological health should be the most significant aspect of a parent’s (or caregiver’s) responsibility. Perhaps foremost to consider is that during their first three to six years of life (depending on which expert one asks) children have particularly malleable minds, thus they’re exceptionally vulnerable to whatever rearing environment in which they happened to have been placed by fate.
LikeLike