Twitter has banned Ye for incitement to violence, which is the common death knell for free speech. So much for free speech absolutism.

https://twitter.com/time/status/1598573430919544832?s=46&t=ZI09DXDb3lbX37sxfJE48g

Really? And this has bothered you for how long? — Isaac

It's the same political shenanigans, just now they've invented a new cudgel 'disinformation'. — Isaac

Are we having a conversation? I don't understand what you are saying. Americans cannot agree about their elections and do not trust the results. Their democracy is not working. Are we in agreement about that?

Americans cannot agree about their elections and do not trust the results. Their democracy is not working. Are we in agreement about that? — unenlightened

Yes, we are in agreement about that. What has that got to do with either truth or censorship?

The truth cannot be established here (insufficient data) and censorship is, in any case, completely unrelated to truth but rather is being used to further various political ends.

Both sides (but more the left than the right at the moment) are using 'disinformation' to promote a (largely corporate) agenda. I really can't see any relationship at all with your (legitimate) concerns about actual truth.

No one to my knowledge is even considering censoring speech which is in opposition to actual truth, like promoting flat-earth theories or denying gravity. What's being mooted (or currently censored) is opinion, not truth.

Opinion about the trustworthiness of the FDA/CDC.

Opinion about the trustworthiness of US intelligence and media on Ukraine.

Opinion about the trustworthiness of electoral institutions.

... and so on. This isn't science, not even close. It's politics.

The truth cannot be established here (insufficient data) and censorship is, in any case, completely unrelated to truth but rather is being used to further various political ends. — Isaac

Truth cannot be established, because it has historically not been sufficiently valued, has not been protected, and rewarded, but has been betrayed and actively persecuted. And that is why I am troubling to make truth the centre of my interventions here. The philosophy of freedom without qualification which I rather suspect you are still promoting, is the political philosophy that has produced a society in which lies flow so freely that the truth cannot be discerned.

America has valued freedom above truth, and is paying the price. Unfortunately, they have also exported their distorted values around the world. And if you cannot see the connection with the topic, I cannot think how to explain it to you any clearer.

Truth cannot be established, because it has historically not been sufficiently valued, has not been protected, and rewarded, but has been betrayed and actively persecuted. — unenlightened

I agree, I just don't see what it's got to to with social media censorship. You opened with...

I'm surprised that folks are so undiscriminating about speaking truth and speaking falsely. — unenlightened

...and now with...

The philosophy of freedom without qualification which I rather suspect you are still promoting — unenlightened

...so this is not a broad, generalised complaint, it seems directly related to social media censorship somehow. You even say...

if you cannot see the connection with the topic, I cannot think how to explain it to you any clearer. — unenlightened

... But you haven't explained it even once yet.

Social media firms are censoring opinions which do not align with their corporate agendas.

Some people are resisting those attempts.

What has that conflict got to do with the valuation of truth? Neither side value truth. Neither side particularly disvalue it either. Their issues are just issues on which the truth is not really known so they can proselytise to their heart's content about it. They are all about matters of opinion.

If there's any relationship between internet censorship and our lack of concern for truth, it's the abuse of the term for political ends.

Nothing is going to devalue truth faster than everyone acting as if it can be established by a team of Google employees just because they call themselves 'fact checkers'.

As I said earlier, we used to have a system in place for getting as close to the truth as possible - academic training, scientific standards, and peer review. Censorship has chucked all that out the window in favour of cheap labels.

Neither side value truth. — Isaac

So you are saying - that my talking about the importance of truth is irrelevant, because neither side values the truth? You are complaining because I have not chosen which lie I prefer?

This is literally unbelievable.

So you are saying - that my talking about the importance of truth is irrelevant, because neither side values the truth? — unenlightened

No. I'm saying you talking about truth is irrelevant because the issue - social media censorship - is not about truth. It's opinion that's being censored. The issue is about power, not truth.

You are complaining because I have not chosen which lie I prefer? — unenlightened

How could you possibly chose which lie you prefer? Ignore lies. Your concern is clearly not lies, it's opinions. You mentioned the election. Neither you nor I have access to the raw data (even if it were sufficient to establish the truth). So any discussion you, I, or 99.999% of Twitter users might have about the election has nothing whatsoever to so with truth. It has solely to do with which source of information we trust.

So you are saying - that my talking about the importance of truth is irrelevant, because neither side values the truth?
— unenlightened

No. I'm saying you talking about truth is irrelevant because the issue - social media censorship - is not about truth. It's opinion that's being censored. The issue is about power, not truth. — Isaac

And you are wrong. But there is no problem with you expressing your opinion on any media. You have lost the truth as even a concept, and been reduced to mere opinion, and you cannot even see the importance. What a shame!

And you are wrong. — unenlightened

So...

Are we having a conversation? — unenlightened

...or are you just mouthing off? Any chance of actually defending your assertions?

there is no problem with you expressing your opinion on any media. — unenlightened

And you're the one claiming to be concerned with truth and here you are deliberately lying for effect. It is just blatantly false that "there is no problem with [me] expressing [my] opinion on any media". You know as well as I do that there are loads of opinions I would not be allowed to express on social media. Loads of opinions have been banned from discussion.

You have lost the truth as even a concept, and been reduced to mere opinion — unenlightened

Is it, or is it not an opinion - the matter of who we trust to provide us with accurate information? It's nothing to do with truth. Who we trust is an opinion.

Unless you personally checked the election results then any discussion on the election is about who we trust (an opinion), not whether the election was rigged (a fact).

you cannot even see the importance. — unenlightened

As I said. If you think the important thing here is whether people can discuss the election and not the fucking CIA having direct control over what is discussed then you've lost all credibility.

Truth cannot be established, because it has historically not been sufficiently valued, has not been protected, and rewarded, but has been betrayed and actively persecuted. And that is why I am troubling to make truth the centre of my interventions here. The philosophy of freedom without qualification which I rather suspect you are still promoting, is the political philosophy that has produced a society in which lies flow so freely that the truth cannot be discerned.

America has valued freedom above truth, and is paying the price. Unfortunately, they have also exported their distorted values around the world. And if you cannot see the connection with the topic, I cannot think how to explain it to you any clearer.

I’m not so sure about that. Posterity tends to work out the truth even after efforts to censor it occurs. The Roman Inquisition did all it could to silence the heliocentric theory but their truth was eventually superseded by heresy.

That’s why any censorship used in the service of truth is really in the service of dogma. Freedom of speech is the only context in which proper trial and error can occur, and truth can finally work itself out. So if America exports mistrust in the institutions of power then so much the better, in my opinion.

Posterity tends to work out the truth even after efforts to censor it occurs. — NOS4A2

Freedom of speech is the only context in which proper trial and error can occur, and truth can finally work itself out. — NOS4A2

The story you tell is rather inconsistent; limitations on the freedom of speech are always limitations on speaking the truth in the interests of lies and deception, yet somehow the truth escapes eventually.

That certainly happens and needs to be prevented as far as possible. The means to do this is an absolute defence in law of the right to speak the truth, not the right to tell lies. such a defence could apply to wiki-leaks, to any whistle-blower, to cases of libel and slander, and so on. But this is not what America stands for, or you defend, or people here seem to support.

This becomes important with the supposed democratisation of speech by the internet, which turns out to be no such thing. What we got is the freedom to say anything, and the bombardment of lies and bullshit to the extent that no one can trust anything that is said. Thus communication of the truth has been reduced, not increased, and particularly in America, ordinary people are more bamboozled with complete nonsense than ever.

Now there is no infallible recipe from distinguishing truth from falsehood, as has been indirectly pointed out to me here. However, society relies on truth for every function, and must defend it or collapse. So we have law, that seeks the truth when it is disputed, and tries to make the distinction case by case.

We have fire alarms to warn us if there is a fire in the building, and if someone sets the alarm off for fun, or to get a break from work, they deserve censure for their dangerous deception that undermines the functioning of the alarm system. There is and should be no right to call fire when there is no fire.

There will always be people trying to deceive for personal gain or for a cause, and there will always be people deceived, and honestly spreading falsehoods. Perhaps everyone does their bit. But the inevitability of failure is the mark of every ideal, and no reason at all to abandon it. Defend the right to speak the truth, but defend also the right to hear it, which means to not have the truth drowned out by lies and bullshit.

to do this is an absolute defence in law of the right to speak the truth, not the right to tell lies. such a defence could apply to wiki-leaks, to any whistle-blower, to cases of libel and slander, and so on. — unenlightened

So explain how this would work. I write "the judiciary are all corrupt and accept bribes" on Twatter and it gets flagged as 'lies', but it's alright because unenlightened's brilliant scheme defends my right to speak the truth. Now. Who's going to check whether what I've said about the corrupt judiciary is true...?

So explain how this would work. I write "the judiciary are all corrupt and accept bribes" on Twatter and it gets flagged as 'lies', but it's alright because unenlightened's brilliant scheme defends my right to speak the truth. Now. Who's going to check whether what I've said about the corrupt judiciary is true...? — Isaac

If the judges are corrupt as a whole, there is no solution. If everyone lies all the time, there is no discernible truth. If you are telling the truth we are fucked. Probably, you are, and we are. So then it is time for a revolution, or the collapse of civilisation until folk start to value truth again. The only answer to corruption is to call it out and end it.

The only answer to corruption is to call it out and end it. — unenlightened

But you're arguing in favour of removing the means by which we could call it out. That seems contradictory.

If the answer to corruption is to call it out, then isn't it vitally important we have good means of doing so which are not open to suppression by the very corruption we'd like to call out?

The agencies currently involved in censorship are...

The government.
The media.
Private internet corporations.
Asset management firms.
Intelligence agencies.
The judiciary (if it goes to court).

That's almost exactly the list of people I'd like to be free to call out the corruption of. The same people you're suggesting ought to be able to suppress speech they think is untrue.

But you're arguing in favour of removing the means by which we could call it out. That seems contradictory. — Isaac

If you think your call out on twitter will change the judiciary or any other thing, then you are sadly deluded. If twitter even had a reputation for honesty, it would help. There is no contradiction in what I say, what is important is the truth, and I defend your right to tell the truth as best as my impotence allows. In the current situation where the truth has already been devalued and corruption is not merely allowed but actively lauded and supported, there is nothing much to be done, but I am still doing my bit to advocate for the truth. And you cry contradiction which is not true. For shame!

If you think your call out on twitter will change the judiciary or any other thing, then you are sadly deluded. — unenlightened

A minute ago what's said on Twitter could bring about the end of civilisation, now it doesn't have any effect?

The only answer to corruption is to call it out and end it, only don't bother because it won't work?

Make up your mind.

There is no contradiction in what I say — unenlightened

There's a direct contradiction. You're advocating for both censorship by institutions controlling public discourse and the ability to freely call out, via public discourse, corruption in those institutions. That's a direct contradiction. You clearly cannot have both.

I am still doing my bit to advocate for the truth. — unenlightened

Don't bother. Apparently it has no effect, and anyone thinking it might is just sadly deluded.

Twitter has banned Ye for incitement to violence, which is the common death knell for free speech. So much for free speech absolutism. — NOS4A2

Yes, but this is a misstatement by Musk, and intentionally so. It is a misuse of rhetoric in order to sustain his unsustainable position he is a free speech absolutist.

Within American jurisprudence we have set an extreme limit on free speech, and it is the incitement to violence standard, so Musk invokes that language to censor under the guise he's different from his predecessor in his brand of limited censorship. He's just a American with fundamental American standards.

But you must wonder then why Kanye hasn't been arrested if his speech is akin to screaming fire when there is no fire. The reason is simple. Musk's standard avoids the critical word within American law of "imminent," meaning only speech which might evoke imminent (i.e. immediate, clear and present and the like) danger is illegal. It's the not subtle distinction between rousing those with pitchforks to here and now assault the Capitol building versus complaining in public about the stolen election.

Under Musk's revised standard, all who hold any view that will offend large market shares can be censored.

That is not free speech. That's the free market speaking. Musk has committed himself to the proposition only that he will publish that which gets him the most customers. He's well aware that catering to racists and anti-Semites isn't the path to that.

Irony of ironies. The rules of basic human decency are being protected by corporate America to protect market share under the pretense that American Constitutional standards demand such.

As perverse as it is, I guess the right result was reached. Ye's drivel has been swept into the dustbin.

:up: :100:

There's a direct contradiction. You're advocating for both censorship by institutions controlling public discourse and the ability to freely call out, via public discourse, corruption in those institutions. That's a direct contradiction. You clearly cannot have both. — Isaac

I am advocating an absolute defence in law for the right to tell the truth. If you speak the truth I defend your right to free speech. But you don't speak the truth, you lie about what I have said to my face. That I condemn. No censorship of the truth, no penalising of anyone who speaks the truth, Penalties for liars like you. It really isn't that complicated. I advocate censuring and censoring lies and liars. I clearly cannot have either, let alone both, in a corrupt world, but I continue to demand the impossible because it is what we ought to aim for as a society.

But you are totally full of shit in everything you say because you know full well what unmoderated freedom on the internet results in, and you choose to pontificate and argue here precisely because the moderation actually increases the freedom and does not diminish it.

I know the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a very popular trope among censorship enthousiasts, but you're quoting someone who sought to silence opposition to the draft during World War I. A nice concrete example of the slippery slope down which that argument leads.

Free speech is about the freedom to share any genuinely-held belief in the context of a civil discussion. It was never about yelling fire in crowded theaters, freedom to slander, lie and deceive, or to threaten and incite violence, etc.

To pretend that it was reveals a keenness for limiting free speech.


I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but the collusion between government and big tech that Musk has exposed via his takeover of Twitter is hard proof of the complete failure of the entire western governmental structure (which is by and large based on and led by the United States's governmental structure).

Of course it simply proved what most already suspected, but to have it out there like that - quite confronting. It's great that it happened. Thank god for 'free speech absolutist' Elon Musk. With outright denial out of the way, the only flavors that are left are to take strong opposition to this unholy alliance between government and big tech or to defend evil.

I wonder which the denizens of this forum will choose.

As long as you have political careers relying on political donations from corporations, you'll have said 'unholy alliance'. Ironically, such corrupt mutual backscratching is excused as an exercise in free speech.

Propaganda can only exist in an environment of censorship, and not in one of free discourse. I see your point, but the cure is not less free speech or more censorship.

And the fact that the only institution who could be appointed to wield such power is the one we have just agreed is utterly and irredeemably corrupt makes it even less of an appealing option.

Ironically, such corrupt mutual backscratching is excused as an exercise in free speech. — the Baden

In the last two or thee years who would you say has benefited financially from freedom of speech? Of the biggest industries in the world - pharmaceuticals, arms, agrochemicals and tech - what examples do you have where their interests have been served by freedom of speech?

I'm struggling to see why, if the big corporations are benefitting from free speech now, they would be seeking to restrict it. All major moves to restrict free speech recently have been instigated by government, big tech, or media and have almost entirely promoted situations which they've benefitted financially from. Are you suggesting they've grown a conscience and are acting against their interests now?

So called "disinformation" is rife among topics that aren't to be discussed publically. It's the censorship itself that creates the atmosphere.

Where do we have disinformation? To name a few topics:
- Covid
- Ukraine
- US elections

Just so happens to be the topics in which there are certain opinions we're not allowed to have. That last one of course being very relevant to this topic.

Yes, but the doctrine "more free speech!" is itself an ideological injunction that is bound to be challenged under its own terms. The market can exercise its free speech through censorship. It says "Nazis and racists are bad for business". It can only be prevented from enacting this stance by restricting its free speech under the dictat of free speech absolutism.

Are you suggesting they've grown a conscience and are acting against their interests now? — Isaac

No, I was referring to unrestricted political donations being protected as a form of free speech in the US.

You’re right; what Musk is doing is not free speech. It’s simply a revision of Twitter’s terms and conditions and standards of moderation, which invariably run contrary to free speech.

The “shouting fire in a crowded theater” canard has somehow buried itself in the American consciousness, for whatever reason, despite the law being unequivocal on it for over half a century. But it isn’t immanent danger—the “clear and present danger” test was overturned—it’s immanent lawless action. The timeframe between the incitement and the lawless action is important. Of course Kanye’s tweet is not a call for immanent lawless action, nor was it intended to be, and Musk is way off the mark.

I’ve noticed a tendency for Americans to equivocate between the 1st amendment on the one hand and free speech in the other. The 1st amendment isn’t free speech and in fact has little to do with it. It’s only a threadbare guarantee that government will not violate free speech and other basic human rights, which of course it violates on numerous occasions. It doesn’t offer any insight into the principle at all, why it is required, or why people ought not to censor another.

A far superior and more absolutist position is held by the UN declaration of human rights, Article 19, which no government would dare to adopt, even despite its tremendous influence.

That is not free speech. That's the free market speaking. — Hanover

I suppose I disagree on the interpretation here by taking the free market speaking freely to be a form of free speech. But, yes, Musk is a hypocrite and a grifter and will take full advantage of his celebrity status and those enamoured by it to slip all sorts of contradictory BS past.

I was referring to unrestricted political donations being protected as a form of free speech in the US. — the Baden

I see. How weird. It's a wonder America needs any other constitutional rights at all then. If political donations are a form of speech, then virtually any other behaviour becomes equally protected.

Should have tried calling abortion a speech act.

Yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

"The ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations"

So, if corporations are people re free speech, again it seems to give them a right to say "no" to free speech absolutism through censorship and create an odd paradox for American free speech advocates.