Where’s the line between free speech and giving idiots a spotlight?

[OddBeMe]

Don’t want free speech to be inhibited but I’m always amazed when personalities are shocked when they’re marginalized after giving spotlight to controversial idiots.

Biggest one in my feed was when Sam Harris had on Charles Murray- who then went on multiple other podcasts promoting his debunked book, casing a new surge in its popularity. Even when it’s BULLSHIT.

Another constant spotlighter is Rogan who doesn’t seem to do homework first. Even if the guest is controversial - which is fine- he just lets them monologue because he hasn’t done any homework.

[NaultD]

Ratings number? I'm not a free speech purist, but none of it matters if their isn't any self-respect to the people watching. Willing fish in a barrel.

As a moral service is a thing that dosen't have to be military. Let every one leave their village and see your proud nation far larger then you've ever known and learn new things. Most informative is information gathering with a nessary due diligence. With the first lesson being "what is due diligence?"

18 to 20 year olds getting mixed around the nation of there 3 chooses of community driving services choices, including military being equally respected. Still getting paid not very well. They still get life lessons no one still could give.

[NaultD]

I mean it is moral to have Selective Service that includes military services but should be larger then just that.

[Drewtate]

Free speech isn't something that needs the approval of @OddBeMe

[OddBeMe]

Maybe that’s why I’m asking on a forum jackass.

[Drewtate]

No you'd rather have Justin Trudeau's nazi policy on free speech

[OddBeMe]

No idea what the fuck that is. But probably not.

[CozyCoffin]

The problem lies in the fact that even if you do your homework, people can change their entire way of thinking. Another issue is that you can fool a lot of people for a time. Think of piltdown man, a missing link hoax using several unrelated fossils introduced in 1912. It was broadly accepted until 1953, when it was completely debunked.

[msc545]

The act of giving someone a "spotlight" or microphone is in and of itself an act of expression or speech on the part of the giver. Like almost all speech, at least in the US, it cannot be blocked or prohibited or outlawed if it comes under the protection of the First Amendment. Most speech in fact does.

This is not to say that there cannot be social consequences but that is different.

[OddBeMe]

Sure and maybe I worded it poorly. didn't mean to say to block those who spotlight. But I think many media people just give away the spotlignt to the fringe thinking it’s honoring free speech.

Thats why most people think global warming is 50/50 instead 98/2. And the 2 are Russian oil employees.

[bobby_bush_eater]

There is no line. The media in all capacities lies, frames, and speaks ignorantly. From Fox News to CNN to BBC to individual podcast people like Joe Rogan. You cannot infringe on it.

People have to do their own research to learn things but they usually don't. That's why as Osho said democracy isn't good because "the people are retarded".

[Juxtapose]

Free speech exists precisely to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech does not need to be protected.

I fully support even the most reprehensible or stupid people taking their part in the open marketplace of ideas.

Did you know that in Denmark the KKK is not even allowed to exist? They are amazed that way in the USA allow them to not only exist but speak and march.

[BoopBoopBeep]

You have the right to be stupid in this country. I'm not going to advocate for restrictions on your ability to broadcast how stupid you are. I don't want to have to investigate in depth to determine that.

[Sevenpointfive]

there is no illusion of free speech without someone speaking against the force fed media. we are smart enough to make our own decisions, but we do need freedom fighters.

[exitseven]

The problem to me is who gets to decide who is an idiot?

[sean1234]

Yeah, why vote?

[DextroShade]

"I don't want free speech inhibited but certain people shouldn't be allowed to speak!"

Typical shit leftard.

[Snakeyes7]

Giving idiots the spotlight is the entire point.

[Snakeyes7]

It is up to the listener to decide who is the idiot.

[Pohjolan]

Oh there's not a line in between. You not interfering with someones free speech doesn't mean that you have to promote or host them.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

As along speech isn't putting someone's life in danger or damaging their reputation then fine.

[OtterMan68]

There is no line.

Free speech for all

[gorydetails]

I know -- you prefer when CNN thinks for you