# Freedom of speech vs. the ‘right’ to be heard....



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 19, 2018)

I’ve been watching with some interest “the internet’s” take on what defines free speech; specifically when it comes to how that speech is being broadcast.  In recent years we’ve seen websites (specifically Facebook and Twitter) take a stronger stand on speech they consider objectionable.  (Guns/politics/etc).    Even Reddit, the supposed “old west” of the internet recently put a ban on trading/selling tobacco items; to include cigars.

“The internet” has lost their collective minds over this.  Comparing these actions to Nazi Germany, communism, you name it.  Truth be told, it is easy to allow yourself to get sucked into that way of thinking.  “Yesterday I could do XYZ on Facebook, now they are blocking it!  Fascists!”

Today I saw something in regards to Alex Jones’ (Inforwars) daily update no longer permitted on Facebook...followed of course by the obligatory “share if you agree” meme’s. 

It got me to thinking, are Facebook/Twitter/Reddit truely making an overt effort to block free speech or messages they do not agree with?  After much thought I have reached the conclusion that it is far less sinister....like so many other things, follow the money.

The ‘gun guys’ got mad at Dick’s when they dropped AR’s from their lineup....maybe Dick’s did not want to take a chance on getting sued by the family of someone massacred by a person who bought their gun there.

Maybe Facebook does not want to be the messenger for Alex Jones, who suggests that the kindergarten kids who were killed by a lone gunmen were not really killed, but part of a conspiracy to take our guns.

At the end of the day I think it has a lot more to do with not wanting to be sued, than it does censoring anyone’s right to free speech.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 19, 2018)

Alex Jones can still go and stand on a soap box in downtown Austin and shout about dead kids being actors. He can say what he wants in his home, at a restaurant, and on his own website. It’s his right to peddle horse shit, and it’s the right of the people running the companies he used to use to propagate his horse shit to not allow him to speak using their medium. Everyone has freedom of expression. Alex can continue to express his his theories on his own, just like those companies can express their distaste for his aforementioned “theories.”


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 19, 2018)

Social media outlets are companies and there is no right to be able to use one, violate their user agreements, that everyone digitally signs, but never reads, and you can be banned.  

Get over it you crying babies on the internet.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 19, 2018)

Everyone has the right to free speech. No one has the right to be heard.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 19, 2018)

^---- THIS  !


----------



## Board and Seize (Aug 20, 2018)

As a semi-counterpoint, see this article from the WSJ (wasn't behind a paywall for me, YMMV).

Summary: Yes, 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech probably isn't at issue when FB, et al. deplatform someone.  However, they are beginning to blur the platform/publisher boundary, and in any case, it is concerning that such a few companies have such outsize impact on the national discourse and can decide what viewpoints are permissible to discuss.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 20, 2018)

Hmmm, I can't stand Alax Jones or his bullshit inflammatory rants that I have seen.

But nobody finds it even a bit odd that he got booted from all major social media platforms, at the same time? I mean dude is not someone who showed up yesterday saying crazy shit, he has been around since the 90's and all of the sudden, in August of 2018, they all decide to kick him off at the same time?

Yeah, I'd say that it  is politically motivated censorship. Mid-term elections are about to start spinning up heavy, and Jones has a lot of media influence and a lot of followers.

Hard to believe how fucked up things have become in our country.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 20, 2018)

Alex Jones is a nutbag, but he's the proverbial broken clock.  Private business can choose to print or allow whatever it wants, but I admit it's difficult to figure out what to parse.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 20, 2018)

Theres a difference between spreading a message, lecturing or reporting and straight up trolling those who oppose your viewpoints.

Homie is a dipshit and Im tired of every tinfoil hat wearing, shovel face looking rih-tard getting an audience.


----------



## Board and Seize (Aug 20, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Private business can choose to print or allow whatever it wants...


So this is where the nuance comes in.  There is a legal distinction between Publisher and Platform.  Publishers are responsible for the content they publish; they can be sued for libel, defamation, and the like.  Platforms, are _not_ responsible for the content they host.  This is a shield that they use to avoid lawsuits for a whole range of things.

These Platforms are beginning to to act like Publishers, making editorial decisions.  Part of the rationale for allowing them to act as Platforms is that they (supposedly) _don't_ exercise such control.  If they're going to cherry-pick what can and can't be posted/shared/etc, then perhaps they should be treated as Publishers and no longer allowed to hide behind the Safe Harbor provision of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Wired article on the provision in question).


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 20, 2018)

I heard an interesting viewpoint (although I am no legal expert when it comes to this so bear with me).

If the likes of Milo and Alex Jones and some of the other ousted were to make a case that these businesses were in fact a monopoly (i.e., controlling the entire market share and preventing you from doing business effectively ending your career) then there may be a basis for a class action lawsuit. 

If you get kicked of Facebook- where do you go? Myspace? How about YouTube- when they shadowban/demonetize your page because they don't like what you're saying and you have no reasonable alternative- is that discrimination?

Agree with @Board and Seize while it may not be a 1st amendment rights violation, and yes you do agree to certain behaviors while on the sites- the likes of FB and YouTube occupy a near stranglehold on what gets put out there and control a large portion of the narrative. 

While I certainly don't agree with everything Milo says and pretty much nothing Alex Jones says, I don't think they should be censored. Don't like them? Don't watch. 

PS, since Alex Jones was taken off the larger social media platforms, he's actually gotten his message amplified and more popular. Go figure.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 20, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Alex Jones is a nutbag, but he's the proverbial broken clock.  Private business can choose to print or allow whatever it wants, but I admit it's difficult to figure out what to parse.



I do not think for one minute that Alex Jones actually believes what he spews.  Similar to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, Jones has tapped into an audience that pays the bills.  The more outrageous his claims, the more his ‘followers’ insist that naysayers are part of the government consperiency, and go to his website to add ‘clicks’, listen to his online radio show,  and donate to the cause.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 20, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I do not think for one minute that Alex Jones actually believes what he spews.  Similar to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, Jones has tapped into an audience that pays the bills.  The more outrageous his claims, the more his ‘followers’ insist that naysayers are part of the government consperiency, and go to his website to add ‘clicks’, listen to his online radio show,  and donate to the cause.


He is 100% annoying, I will tell you that much. How he can go from screaming about false flags and gay frogs into a read for supplements every 3 minutes makes him unbearable to even watch. 

The only thing I ever hoped for AJ was that he actually pissed off Joe Rogan when they had their little back and forth and Joe was going to put Jones to sleep for a little bit. Unfortunately it didn't happen. But a guy can hope.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 20, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> While I certainly don't agree with everything Milo says and pretty much nothing Alex Jones says, I don't think they should be censored. Don't like them? Don't watch.



I couldn't agree more with this.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 20, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I do not think for one minute that Alex Jones actually believes what he spews.  Similar to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, Jones has tapped into an audience that pays the bills.  The more outrageous his claims, the more his ‘followers’ insist that naysayers are part of the government consperiency, and go to his website to add ‘clicks’, listen to his online radio show,  and donate to the cause.




I don't know much about what he is doing these days, but back in the early 2000's I would occasionally listen to him on the radio, and he seemed to absolutely believe what he was talking about. I quit paying him any attention at all when I saw a YouTube video of him stirring shit up at a pro-2A rally in Austin about 7-8 years ago. It became pretty clear he was provoking a response from the other side, while the 2A people were trying to keep things civil.

My overall point is not really AJ or his content, but more so the censorship. I cannot stand The Young Turks anymore or less than I can the likes of AJ but I don't think they should be booted from social media platforms, and they have put out some pretty hateful and violent content in years past towards the far right.

ETA- I recently saw a video on FB of a MAGA rally, where some BLM protesters showed up and started with their chants. It was pretty interesting as the Trump supporters decided to give the leader of the BLM group a few minutes of unenterupted time to share their message. I was pretty shocked as the message was not what I had expected. It won't ever excuse their calling for dead cops in years past, or the tragic loss of several cops because of that group. But the message was not one of hate, and was very different than what I expected. All because some Trump supporters gave them a platform to say their message. I don't think BLM and Trump supporters are going to fundamentally agree on many things, but that day a bunch of them agreed on a few things....and that, in my opinion, is where we need to be as a country. Finding common ground and listening to other side, agreeing where we can, instead of focusing on what we disagree on and trying to overshoutor censor one another's message.

-found the video


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 20, 2018)

It is censorship.  For the moment it is allowed, yet Facebook, Twitter, youtube have monopolies in their sphere of influence.  The reality is that there are some left leaning loons that have not been censored...so you either maintain a standard or you let it ride.


----------



## GOTWA (Aug 20, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I do not think for one minute that Alex Jones actually believes what he spews.  Similar to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, Jones has tapped into an audience that pays the bills.  The more outrageous his claims, the more his ‘followers’ insist that naysayers are part of the government consperiency, and go to his website to add ‘clicks’, listen to his online radio show,  and donate to the cause.


The first thing that came to mind; is anyone caught up on Homeland?


----------



## Gunz (Aug 20, 2018)

Everybody just needs to shut the fuck up.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 20, 2018)

Concur with all the thoughts here and will add...

The social media landscape is constantly evolving.  There was MySpace.  Then Facebook came along.  Facebook has seen it's peak and likely will continue to devolve. The "kids" don't use it all...they'te on to Snap, IG, etc.

The fact is there are plenty of voices that want to be heard.  When one platform decides to limit it's users/audience, for whatever reason, it creates opportunity for another channel to rise and even thrive at some level.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 20, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Everybody just needs to shut the fuck up.


----------



## Topkick (Aug 20, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> My overall point is not really AJ or his content, but more so the censorship. I cannot stand The Young Turks anymore or less than I can the likes of AJ


People like this are part of the problem, not the solution. These talking heads work to turn people against each other and although people should have the right to hear it, I'm not sure why they do that to themselves.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Aug 20, 2018)

I watched a Joe Rogan clip on YouTube where he talks about AJ just yesterday. Apparently, and I'm taking JR's word for it, AJ has in the past uncovered some serious conspiracies. Like the broken clock analogy, he usually says some off the wall rediculous stuff.

As FB, YT, Twitter and all that become huge platforms that are suposed to be for public consumption, there seems to be a trend where left leaning FOS commentators are left alone while right leaning lunatics get shadow banned or removed. ISIS uses Twitter, The Nation of Islam has tons of Kill Whitey shit on YT, FB has pretty much EVERY shithead imaginable. All us rational folks know about the user policy, and all of us know that there's sensationalism on both sides.

I want to start hearing tree huggers and commies getting banned now. I won't hold my breath.

I want to add that recently there was some Hollocaust denial outrage where FB refused to ban the perpetrator.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Aug 20, 2018)

Board and Seize said:


> So this is where the nuance comes in.  There is a legal distinction between Publisher and Platform.  Publishers are responsible for the content they publish; they can be sued for libel, defamation, and the like.  Platforms, are _not_ responsible for the content they host.  This is a shield that they use to avoid lawsuits for a whole range of things.
> 
> These Platforms are beginning to to act like Publishers, making editorial decisions.



Holy shit. Perfect explaination.


----------



## Gunpowder (Aug 20, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Everybody just needs to shut the fuck up.



Besides what Ocoka says...how about suing a baker over a fucking cake...


----------



## Centermass (Aug 21, 2018)

Gunpowder said:


> Besides what Ocoka says...how about suing a baker over a fucking cake...


 
Colorado is at it once again no less.......


----------



## CQB (Aug 21, 2018)

The SOCMED players aren’t publishers as noted. The real censors are organisations like Sleeping Giants & they’re very effective.
Sleeping Giants - Wikipedia
Censorship is no longer exclusively a government function.(yep, know wiki isn’t an ideal source but there you go)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 22, 2018)

Ron Wyden calls for 'consequences' when 'bad actor' content isn't removed from social media

ACLU: Alex Jones ban could set dangerous social media precedent

I've been doing some thinking on this and I find it a bit disturbingly slanted. In the top article it carries on about labeling "bad actors" and talks about common decency and or eludes to morality of media and or news. Who gets to decide that? This is almost the same as being labeled a terrorist by the government and travel banned without recourse or due process. Civil rights are being restricted and or removed without due process of law. 

The private company issue, is another concern, as us a private company should be able to set it's own rules and governing laws for internal use. But where it get dicy is what happens when that company uses internal rules and or laws to restrict civil rights? Is it a right to be on a private social media platform? Obviously not, but when those platforms monopolize and do a blackout ban of (whether you like it or not) a large "news" media influence, but not to other's, I would argue that it yields an unfair advantage to those other media's and restricts the freedom of press and speech of the other, such as infowars or Alex Jones. 

Bad Actors, who gets to decide who is a bad actor? Who gets to decide who has civil rights, and who doesn't?






Now I'm not jumping into the conspiracy rabbit hole here, but shit just might be a little more fucked up than we are all thinking.


----------



## CQB (Aug 23, 2018)

Those like Jones thrive on outrage & the more the better. As long as sections of the community bite, he'll have a job.


----------



## Topkick (Aug 23, 2018)

CQB said:


> Those like Jones thrive on outrage & the more the better. As long as sections of the community bite, he'll have a job.


These days, you could say this about the mainstream media as well.


----------



## Grunt (Aug 23, 2018)

CQB said:


> Those like Jones thrive on outrage & the more the better. As long as sections of the community bite, he'll have a job.



Supply and demand! A principle that applies to anything.....


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 29, 2022)

I figured this is relevant here. Now the government is going to dictate what is disinformation and misinformation, censoring the internet.  If you think this will happen only in Canada, just wait. 


Melanie Joly vows to tackle 'virtual battleground' of Russian disinformation


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 29, 2022)

I know we had a lot of discussion on this subject regarding twitter's censorship and amplification of certain narratives of the regime.  "The Regime" is generally the establishment that controls everything, for the moment the regime is not conservative.  Obviously if people vote one way and some of these smug rich people change their mind it could become so.  

But Twitter and Facebook are clearly a public square.  And we've seen that now especially, if we go back to the Hunter Biden issue, which does have its own thread on here.  Twitter and Facebook deplatformed the New York Post, a newspaper that has been published for 221 years and founded by Alexander Hamilton.  But now they're still manipulating the story and not allowing any amplification of the New York Times articles on this.  You also have explicit avoidance to cover the story by CNN/MSNBC.  Which Twitter and Facebook explicitly amplified the "fake news" of the denials by the retired members of the IC who went on every news program to say it was fake or a deep fake and Russian interference.  These members of the IC clearly are a part of the "regime" but are also in fact "traitors" to the truth.  (Hard to think of a better word here, but open to suggestions)

Additionally, Twitter and Facebook and the liberal media also pushed the Steele Dossier story and then we had the FBI run a years long investigation into a Presidential Candidate and interfered with an election.  

So say what you want about them being private companies, but what they're doing is funneling the information that their moderation teams want users to see.  And that is a problem.  You could say: Hey use another platform.  You can, but those platforms are effectively worthless.  It also makes it harder to actually read news etc. Speed of information being instant with social media is why this issue is so great and why there should be regulation on what they can and can't do.  

These are the same companies that give ISIS a platform to spread hate.  But why are they deplatforming the truth?


----------



## Marauder06 (May 18, 2022)

Adding this here instead of starting another thread.  To sum up, President Biden announced that the DHS "Disinformation Board" has been suspended, and the person tapped to head it has been fired.
Top Republicans Turner, Katko say 'disinformation' board pause 'best decision' by Biden admin



> Sources told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the disinformation board was being put on hold and director Nina Jankowicz will resign.



I think President Biden made a good decision on both of the above counts.  This Board was a bad idea, and the person originally tapped to lead it was working out of an enormous credibility hole.


----------



## Blizzard (May 18, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Adding this here instead of starting another thread.  To sum up, President Biden announced that the DHS "Disinformation Board" has been suspended, and the person tapped to head it has been fired.
> Top Republicans Turner, Katko say 'disinformation' board pause 'best decision' by Biden admin
> 
> 
> ...


At the risk of sounding like I should don some tinfoil, I view this as more of a test to see what kind of support they have and what they can get away with. I don't think the concept of this idea is dead.  They'll try something similar again.  Look at our media channels.  Information/data is the battleground.

It's funny how some old movies can be so clairvoyant:


----------



## Gunz (May 18, 2022)

Liberal Administrations (and liberal political candidates) have the advantage of having a ready-made, built-in Ministry of Propaganda through the largely supportive main stream media. They don't need a disinformation board. I fully agree with @Blizzard 's assessment above that this was a case of "let's run it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes."


----------



## Devildoc (May 18, 2022)

And getting this chick to run it was like getting Dr. Josef Mengele to run a medical ethics commission.


----------



## Muppet (May 18, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> And getting this chick to run it was like getting Dr. Josef Mengele to run a medical ethics commission.



I did nazi that coming. ;) But, yes, you're correct bro.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 28, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Adding this here instead of starting another thread.  To sum up, President Biden announced that the DHS "Disinformation Board" has been suspended, and the person tapped to head it has been fired.
> Top Republicans Turner, Katko say 'disinformation' board pause 'best decision' by Biden admin
> 
> 
> ...


DHS "Disinformation Board":   suspended back in May, formally disbanded on the 24th and announced of the 25th of August.

Good riddance to an absolutely terrible (and terrifying) idea.

DHS Finally Admits Defeat, Disbands Failed Free Speech Governance Board


----------

