Do you agree with the limits the government places on freedom of speech?

[Kelley1]

Updates

+1 y

Most social media are not private companies. If they were they would not all limit the same type of speech. In fact they are all owned by a conglomeration same thinking billionaires that in effect, rule the government.

Updates

+1 y

Most social media does not mean all social media. There is social media that is not the mainstream monopoly with identical speech rules. Therefore, since they are not part of the social media monopoly, they have the right to limit speech to their rules.

[yepdonethat]

Yelling fire in a theater, OK. But unfortunately in most countries we have moved into absolute speech control craziness. I don't even agree with silencing or arresting for threats. Unless the guy makes some kind of move, it's not legal to control it in my opinion. For example. He makes a threat and then shows up on your sidewalk. OK, arrest. He makes a threat and then immediately buys a weapon. OK, arrest. But yeah, people never learn from history or from great writers and every country including the USA is slipping into totalitarian speech control. It is 1984 happening right in front of our eyes. Speech laws, controlling speech, silencing, and making words disappear or changing their meaning. It's right out of 1984. I am a George Carlin kind of guy, SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO SAY, WHEN YOU WANT TO SAY IT. And people just need to grow up. No one is forcing anyone to just sit there and listen. People choose to listen, then they get angry. It's self victimization. These people are making themselves a victim. Had that happen on here where a deranged woman who was so deranged about racism turned my facts and free speech into "you are terrorizing me." LOL. Thin skinned children who want a safe bubble that will never exist.

[CozyCoffin]

Yes.

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.

I’ve bolded one word above, Congress; i. e., the Government.

Private companies are not the government (hopefully this is obvious). All users agreed to abide by their terms in order to use their private property. We must play by their rules and respect their property rights (servers).

If you come into my home (property) and use your Free Speech to say something that I find objectionable, then I can throw you out of my home. I have not violated your free speech rights. I’ve enforced my property rights. And you’ve gotten some consequences for your speech.

It’s the same with these companies. You use their space, and servers. You say something they don’t like. They throw you out and enforce their property rights.

If the government placed restrictions upon these companies and by extension or interpretation, you, wouldn't your rights be taken away?

[laly520]

I dont agree

even when they pretend like we have total freedom of speech its still not the case

rather than a big lie

try expressing a different opinion from what they want to hear n u will get attacked or cancelled

the cancel culture walks side by side with freedom of speech nowadays

[Anonymous]

Social media is not the government. And I think having a safe space is important.

[OlderAndWiser]

The First Amendment prevents the government from controlling your speech. It does not prevent a private party from exercising controls over your speech. I can prevent you from coming onto my property to give a political speech if I do not agree with your views. Your employer can prevent you from expressing political speech while you are "on the clock" for the employer.

Your right to free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want to say, wherever you want to say it, and whatever time you choose.

[Kelley1]

If you believe the First Amendment actually PREVENTS the government from controlling your speech, I have a bridge to sell you.

[OlderAndWiser]

No, the First Amendment gives you legal rights against the government if it tries to infringe on your right to free speech, as long as you are in one of those narrow exceptions, like screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater or encouraging someone else to commit a violent crime.

[Kelley1]

That is only because you are not allowed to disturb the peace when people are trying to watch a movie. If makes no difference if you are screaming "Fire" or "Rain," you are disturbing the peace. People will look around and not seeing anything will just sat theer. No one would panic. There are plenty of exits on each side of the theater people could use to leave, but they wouldn't unless management makes an announcement and tells them to leave.

[OlderAndWiser]

You seem to be quite argumentative. I'm not.

[Kelley1]

I'm logical which is rare for a girl. You appear not to be.

[OlderAndWiser]

Argumentative AND you like to make derogatory comments about people who disagree with you.

Thanks for the lecture on the First Amendment. I never really understood any of us and you helped to explain a few things.

[Kelley1]

Argumentative AND you like to make derogatory comments about people who disagree with you.

Amazing that you would say that since you started it.

Quoting the constitution is not helpful when the government violates it.

[OlderAndWiser]

And what did I say that started your name calling and derogatory comments?

[Kelley1]

I never called you a name and I would not. You said, "You seem to be quite argumentative." That started it so in turn, I replied that you appear not to be logical. You didn't say I was argumentative, but you implied it. I don't say you are not logical, but I implied it.

[OlderAndWiser]

Touché. You win. Happy now?

[Kelley1]

No! I would rather you had said, we have the first amendment but the government often violates it.

[OlderAndWiser]

So you would prefer to control what I say when talking about the First Amendment! Hahaha! Do you see any irony in that?

[Kelley1]

I prefer that you believe the truth. You wife prefers that you don't gamble your money away. If you do, she has some degree of control because she can punish you. What control do I have?

[OlderAndWiser]

Are you one of those people who insists on having the last word?

[Anonymous]

The term is cartel not monopoly, The Tech Tyrants run a social media cartel that dominates the market and enforces the same censorship rules on all the platforms they control.

This is self-evident particularly in contrast with the few non-cartel run platforms.

Government particularity foreign goverment do influence and indeed force these rules via both direct and back door regulatory threats.

So there may be a day when we have to simply refuse believe what little we see from any censor-able platform which operates under any such goverment.

[DJB72]

The problem with limitations on "free speech" is it's the precursor of "directed speech". It starts with banning certain words or phrases and ends up with criminalisation of dissenting voices.

Look at what's happening with Jordan Peterson in Canada. He's being forced to undergo "retraining" on the use of social media. Because he dared suggest in a tweet an idea different from Trudeau's and was critical of his liberal ideology.

Words are how we express thought. Think "Big Brother" from 1984 or any part of Clockwork Orange.

Limits to free speech can only go in one direction

[Lliam]

No!
According to the first amendment, which is the law of the land, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

The government is trying to skirt the law by allowing and encouraging privately owned media corporations to censor speech.

It's an attempt to limit access to information, control people's minds, and impose dictatorship.

[MrOracle]

Short of organizing or directly inciting criminal activity, adults should not have their speech limited by the government.

The reason for the scientific advances and the reduction of REAL racism is the ability to have open, public discussions. It's very difficult for lies or terrible ideas to thrive when they can openly be debated and questioned. That's how the KKK went from a membership of millions to a membership of a few thousand - censorship didn't do that.

The people who advocate for censorship (of adults) are always people who know their ideas cannot withstand questions and debate.

Some things DO need to be "censored" for children, because there are things that you need a more mature brain to deal with. I'm not really talking about that here - that's a separate conversation.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to the private companies that run social media, only the government. They (social media) are free to limit whatever they want.

[Danny_dan92]

Freedom of speech used to be what it is,




Now it’s abstract. You only have freedom of speech as long as what you’re saying is fitting to the agenda/narrative of a particular side.

[exitseven]

I don/t have a problem with the government. I am in complete agreement with the First Amendment. It is the democrats limiting any content that opposes their agenda is what i object to.

[ItsMariusz]

Why would anyone agree? Genuinely curious.

Also you have freedom of speech to a certain degree, if you get in the way, you lose it.

[Kiss_Me]

Nope. The 1st amendment should rule at all times. Allowing others to control a narrative means they have an agenda. EVERYONE needs to put on their big girl panties and make a decision what they choose to read and what choose to believe.

[bolverk]

No, there is either Free Speech or there is not, There are Irish MP's who are also suggesting that Free Speech should be limited, this is the first step to totalitarianism.

[FunkyMonkee]

absolutely not!! It's supposed to be a free country!! I haven't felt free here in years!! Might as well be living in Russia or China!!

[Cody2004]

I do but also at the same time I agree with some of the limits

[dreamstar72]

We should have the right to free speech, but it does not give us the right to turn free speech to hate and racial problems

[JayBones]

There is a reason free speech is the first Amendment in the US Constitution. The second was always a backup plan. When there is no speech the bullets will fly.

[Snakeyes7]

Absolutely not. You should never get in legal trouble for the opinions you have.

[Slapmynuts]

The government has overstepped it's boundaries in so many ways and the sad thing is Americans (not all) don't even know it!😁

[standardguy]

No. I think that restriction on freedom of speech is the first step to a destruction of democracy.

[nawtee_me]

Is hate speech still speech? Does a person have a right to feel a certain way? Do they have to right to express it?

[slatyb]

It's not the government. Social media sites are private and they are free to allow or disallow content as they see fit. If you don't like it, you can build your own social media site.

[QuietRunner]

In the United States the limit is placed on how far government can restrict speech

and no I don't agree

[RingOfFire]

.

[JacobJordan]

Would be free if it was limited now would it

[TonyMetal___86]

The freedom of speech should have borders where you can't disrespect others or humiliate them of cause them any mental harm...

[Iron_Man]

What freedom of speech you can’t say anything anymore, without being criticized

[Iron_Man]

Plus, you can get fired from your job

[OtterMan68]

No, I'm pretty much a free speech purist

[ChicoFromThe305]

Yea speech is speech, acts is something different

[Anonymous]

I have an opinion.

[Lisaasker]

No 😔

[itsclearlynicholas]

Guess so 😃

[linguistrosey]

No and no.

[Slim57]

Nope