I, for one, don’t want to live in such a society. I believe giving the state such power has the corresponding effect of diminishing social power. — NOS4A2

Do you think the government should have the power to inspect restaurants and shut them down if it finds them operating contrary to the public interest? Or do you favor a "buyer beware" policy where if enough customers drop dead, everyone else will eat somewhere else?

This is not intended to be a difficult question. It's meant to make the point that even a libertarian believes in the board of health. Or eats at home.

Is "dog whistle" a phrase used over there? Your OP was a whistle to the local dogs, who are now barking at nothing. You havn't made a point of any significance,

Fetishising free speech.

Being allowed to say what you want assumes a critical capacity on the part of your audience. But look at the posts here.

Your OP was a whistle to the local dogs, who are now barking at nothing. — Banno

Didn't think there were this many.

Do you think the government should have the power to inspect restaurants and shut them down if it finds them operating contrary to the public interest?

No, I don’t think so and for the same reason I stated. I don’t know of any solution, but there has to be a better alternative than aggrandizing the state.

It was government posturing and regulations that led to censorship on social media in the first place.

Fetishising free speech — Banno

Wrong. This isn't some abstract argument over bookworm principles. This is about letting the most bloodthristy government on the planet work with the most duplicitous corporate stooges on on the planet in order to control what can and cannot be expressed in the among the largest forums of expression on the planet.

This isn't some abstract argument over bookworm principles. This is about letting the most bloodthristy government on the planet work with the most duplicitous corporate stooges on the planet in order to control what can and cannot be said. — StreetlightX

Oh yes. And the net result will be saving lives.

Didn't think there were this many. — Xtrix

Sometimes when the dogs start barking at nothing, it is fun to bark back just to see how loud they will get.

And the net result will be saving lives. — Banno

Sad to see you lick boots this way.

Sad to see you lick boots this way. — StreetlightX

Remember that I have no skin in this. I'm just laughing at a silly OP.

No, I don’t think so and for the same reason I stated. I don’t know of any solution, but there has to be a better alternative than aggrandizing the state.

It was government posturing and regulations that led to censorship on social media in the first place. — NOS4A2

Yeah, we know. Because in your world, government — to quote St. Reagan — is always the problem.

Let me guess: the solution is the free market?

No, I don’t think so and for the same reason I stated. I don’t know of any solution, but there has to be a better alternative than aggrandizing the state.

It was government posturing and regulations that led to censorship on social media in the first place. — NOS4A2

As a fellow libertarian I salute your absolutism and ideological purity. I myself take a more nuanced approach. Lunch counters have to serve everyone and the health department has the right to make sure the local restaurants are keeping out the rats. And social media companies serving as de facto town squares can't engage in what's legally called viewpoint discrimination. And as has been noted, even a private company can't violate the Constitution when it is effectively acting as a government agent, as Jen Psaki just admitted Facebook is doing.

Well, if you're not in favor for freedom of speech which you hate, they you're not in favor of freedom of speech. Saying one likes free speech when you only hear things you like, does not make you a supporter of freedom of speech.

Though misattributed to Voltaire, to him it was obvious: "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Yeah but you're naive enough to think that handing yet more power to a set of actors who have caused immesurable loss of life and acceleration of global misery will somehow save lives. In fact naive is far too nice a word. It is straight egregious stupidity. And if you think this is an issue that will only affect backyards other than yours, you haven't been paying attention to your own backyard, where you claim to be.

https://youtu.be/3RVJrr16NZo

Quite frankly, I think you are a very rude person who resorts to ad hominem arguments when frustrated. How meanspirited to refer to me or anyone else as a dog. I made my point and don't need your approval.

What matters is the ethics and politics of the situation, whether the state should determine what can and cannot be said, and so on. — NOS4A2

We've always held that dangerous speech should be censored.

That's all well and good, and entirely irrelevant. An ad hom, trying to get folk to look at me instead of the specified inadequacies of your OP.

Woof.

We've always held that dangerous speech should be censored. — frank

Indeed. Hence fetish: an object believed to have special power to protect.

And what is to be done about Assange? Why talk about this piddling issue while Assange remains in gaol in Britain? How are your own priorities?

And what is to be done about Assange? — Banno

Really? A misdirect? That's your response?

The issue is freedom of speech. The greatest present travesty against freedom of speech is the imprisonment of Assange. It's not a misdirect, it's a return to the prime issue.

If you wish to defend freedom of speech, do it for real, not as a response to a dogwhistle OP.


@charles ferraro, @NOS4A2, @fishfry, @MondoR - if you are so keen on free speech, where are your defences of Assange? Were have you argued for his release?

Or is it just freedom to say the things you like to hear?

The greatest present travesty against freedom of speech is the imprisonment of Assange. — Banno

I agree, but this thread isn't about that. If anything, the cruelty imposed on Assange is all the more reason why what the OP is about ought to be opposed at every point. We know what these people are capable of - and the last thing we need to is give our blessing and support for them getting away with yet more.

Even a broken clock like the OP is right once in a while, even if for stupid reasons.

I agree... — StreetlightX

Good. Then i apologise for pulling your strings. But I maintain that free speech is a fetish for the many amongst us who lust after it only to server their private illicit cravings.

the cruelty imposed on Assange — StreetlightX

I thought Assange has just become another useful idiot of putin (AKA @jamalrob), no?

Why would you think that?

What is the dividing line between government censorship and private censorship? Would this site be in violation of the 1st Amemdment if it banned racist speech? How many followers must it have for it to be called a common carrier, which seems an odd designation for a website as opposed to the internet generally? Can I cast a racist into the street or must I allow him to dine at my dinner table?

If this is a matter of line drawing, are these lines drawn based upon some clear principle or are they arbitrary and political compromises?

If I stand before the court charged with violating someone's 1st Amendment rights, do you defer to the prosecution the right to define those limits after I'm charged?

He's being used by shit-tin and his apologists for propaganda purposes (the Spanish version of this 'documentary' has nearly a million views, so god knows about other language versions):

I can't watch that now but of course he's being used by Putin for propaganda purposes. That's what anyone would do. Assange exposed US war crimes through entirely legal means and is being punished for it. Which is in keeping with the US being the most tyrannical regime on Earth. That's all you need to know.

dude, assange is just another dodgy Aussie like murdoch or @Banno

Assange is just another dodgy Aussie like murdoch — The Opposite

You're comparing a whistleblower journalist held in appalling conditions with one of the most powerful media moguls on Earth? Get a grip.

in that he similarly partakes in morally-dubious activities - yes.

Ugh, go collect your CIA pay, but don't bother me with this shit.

engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation

I haven't read this whole thread, but how is that "forcing" anyone to do anything? I'd like to see fact-checkers engaged more aggressively and misinformation dispelled. And hasn't the government always been an advocate for it's position? Aren't they always getting out there trying to sell their side against the other? I mean, dummy was on on Faux News and Twitter all the time.

My apologies if the U.S. is actually forcing media to quash opinion.