Julius Streicher and what to do about free speech?

How do we handle dangerous speech?

  • Good speech defeats Bad speech

    Votes: 13 52.0%
  • Something else

    Votes: 12 48.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Censorship is innate to freedom of speech unless you want to abolish the right to control your own property.

That's a hell of an insight. One of those 'obviously true' statements packaged beautifully. :hatsoff:

Right now, as a society, we're flirting with excessive censorship. Up-to-and-including violating people's property expectations. We're on a bit of a knife's edge.
 
They didn't really send a drone at Donald Trump; it's only because Twitter bans conservatives.
 
Last edited:
I never said an allegation was a conviction. "GTFO with that" indeed. Beyond that, I'm not interested in your defense of Assange. I simply spoke from what factually happened, and didn't mention my opinions on it at all.

It would seem based on the statement you make immediately following this one that you give allegations weight even when they remain unproven, and indeed that this is somehow reasonable to consider when evaluating the difference in character/reasons to pardon someone.

I'm saying it's uncharitable to Snowden to mention them in the same context. Their situations are legally different, and Snowden doesn't deserved to be tarnished with the same brush.

Similarly, I never claimed that "Assange and Snowden are ethically identical" either, because they're not. Just that Trump should have pardoned both for similar reasons.

~~~

On a side note, the courts just allowed Amazon to breach its contract freely. Hard to believe, but it happened. I hope everyone who can drops their sorry *** like a brick, since they've proven their agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on.

I also hope that judge that made this decision stops being a judge as soon as possible, since she clearly doesn't give a crap about the law, or that Amazon apparently has no requirement to apply its standards consistently even in the realm of law.
 
The case isn't over, the judge just ruled against a temporary order to get Parler back online during the trial.
Wiki summary on the judge's page doesn't look like the judge was unreasonable, and that Parler had claims with no evidence.

On January 21, 2021, Judge Rothstein ruled on the temporary restraining order request filed by the social media website Parler against the Amazon Web Services requesting that the Court order AWS to restore web service to Parler. The case came to light after supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol Building during the certification of the 2020 Presidential election. In making its decision to remove Parler from their server, Amazon argued that the platform refused to remove over 100 posts that contained violent threats against various individuals in violation of the AWS terms of service.

In asserting their claim, Parler raised three claims: (1) Conspiracy to restrain trade, (2) breach of contract, and (3) and tortious interference with business expectancy. Parler, LLC. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. In asserting their claims, Parler argued that the termination of services by AWS was designed to reduce the competition of Twitter. In rejecting their first claim, Judge Rothstein called Parler's evidence "dwindlingly slight and disputed by AWS." She also noted Parler submitted no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted either together intentionally, or whether they acted together at all, an essential component in such claims. While Parler claimed that evidence existed that AWS' actions were political retaliation since Twitter had similarly abusive language, according to Parler, the Judge pointed out that Twitter and Parler were not similarly situated because AWS did not provide web supporting services to Twitter.

Parler's second claim of breach of contract was similarly rejected. Parler's claim was centered on the belief that the contract with AWS entitled them to a 30 day cure period to remedy a material breach. However, the agreement permitted AWS terminate their service immediately upon notice which Parler failed to dispute.

Parler's final claim was that AWS pulled their service at a moment that Parler was expecting to see an increase in users. However Judge Rothstein noted that Parler failed to allege the facts necessary to support their claim. "Most fatally," Judge Rothstein wrote, "it has failed to raise more than the scantest speculation that AWS' actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means." Moreover, AWS denied any wrongdoing and asserted that it acted lawfully.
 
I've been thinking on all this "Deep State" crap. Like, why did Traitor Trump and the Fellow Traveler Traitors always harp about the Deep State?

See, turns out that it was the "Deep State" which prevented the overthrow of the US government by Trump and the Trumpiestas. Which is to say, the "Deep State" is the institutional strength of the American government to resist collapse in the face of deliberate attempts to destroy it.
 
An interesting foresight from 1968...

It turns out, however, that freedom of expression sometimes presents a greater threat to an idea, because forbidden thoughts may
circulate in secret, but what can be done when an important fact is lost in a flood of impostors, and the voice of truth is drowned
out by an ungodly din? When that voice, though freely resounding, cannot be heard because the technologies of information have
led to a situation in which one can receive best the message of him who shouts the loudest, even when the most falsely?

Stanislaw Lem, His Master's Voice, 1968.
 

Jimmy Dore on censorship

If censorship violates free speech, and that isn't a crime, then who cares? Suck it up and move on, those violating your whatever didn't do anything wrong.

By the way, if we are debating "if censorship violated free speech" then that's usually done in the context of the 1st amendment. No?

People who believe in free speech care, even the people who dont believe in free speech would object to being silenced. Censorship could be a crime, I'm just not familiar with various legal codes dealing with it. Unless the censorship involves violence its usually handled with civil lawsuits. I posted the definition of free speech, it is not limited to the 1st Amendment or government.

Victim of the deep end.

Tucker Carlson said! :lol:

I trust him more than the Democrats, 4 years of Russiagate destroyed their credibility. Besides, he'll invite people on who disagree with him and while I know its self serving he invites people on I trust, like Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Jonathan Turley and Jimmy Dore. I dont see that on MSNBC, they're an echo chamber.

Censorship is innate to freedom of speech unless you want to abolish the right to control your own property.

What if Congress told you to censor people on your property?

I think that people really should be nervous that Amazon was able to flex so much power so easily. I don't know how they do it, I only give them $9 a month.

"Amazon is seeking to postpone a unionization vote at a warehouse in Alabama and is asking federal labor authorities to reconsider a decision to allow mail-in voting due to the pandemic". - WSJ

Looks like Jeff Bezos is concerned about the validity of mail in ballots ;)

I've been thinking on all this "Deep State" crap. Like, why did Traitor Trump and the Fellow Traveler Traitors always harp about the Deep State?

See, turns out that it was the "Deep State" which prevented the overthrow of the US government by Trump and the Trumpiestas. Which is to say, the "Deep State" is the institutional strength of the American government to resist collapse in the face of deliberate attempts to destroy it.

Have you ever heard of Russiagate, Carter Page, or the Steele Dossier?

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

“So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

He's talking about the deep state. We spent decades struggling with the USSR/Russia over dissolving their empire, Ukraine became ground zero in that conflict under Obama. The deep state was wed to that policy and Trump was a threat, so they conspired with the FBI to bring him down. John Brennan, James Clapper, Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, etc... Obama's FBI lied to a Fisa court to spy on their political opponents.

Moderator Action: To give you an example of censorship, your right to free speech does not apply here. If you keep trolling everyone, you are going to find out that your right will indeed end. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What if Congress told you to censor people on your property?
US Constitution, Amendment I

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.
 
Similarly, I never claimed that "Assange and Snowden are ethically identical" either, because they're not. Just that Trump should have pardoned both for similar reasons.
I know you didn't claim that. I didn't say you did. It wasn't about the ethics of it. I said their cases were legally different. Therefore, they should not be treated as similar just because they both involve leaks of some description. Any President that looks at pardoning them shouldn't view them as interchangable on that basis alone.
 
On a side note, the courts just allowed Amazon to breach its contract freely. Hard to believe, but it happened. I hope everyone who can drops their sorry *** like a brick, since they've proven their agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on.

I also hope that judge that made this decision stops being a judge as soon as possible, since she clearly doesn't give a crap about the law, or that Amazon apparently has no requirement to apply its standards consistently even in the realm of law.

Just wondering whether you've ever studied or practiced law? And if not, why should anyone believe your interpretation of the law over that of a judge?
 
Have you ever heard of Russiagate, Carter Page, or the Steele Dossier?

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

“So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

He's talking about the deep state. We spent decades struggling with the USSR/Russia over dissolving their empire, Ukraine became ground zero in that conflict under Obama. The deep state was wed to that policy and Trump was a threat, so they conspired with the FBI to bring him down. John Brennan, James Clapper, Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, etc... Obama's FBI lied to a Fisa court to spy on their political opponents.



So the truth is a deep state conspiracy to suppress the truth. :crazyeye:
 
I think that people really should be nervous that Amazon was able to flex so much power so easily. I don't know how they do it, I only give them $9 a month.
Is it time to summon Theodore Roosevelt and his Trust Buster gang?
 
Strong Institutions can look like Deep State, and it's probably hard to tell them apart with a little bit of bias and a great deal of media filtration.

The upthread rumour that Snowden's pardon was prevented would be super-interesting, though. But, maybe with quotes, 'interesting'. Caveat: I think that all conversation around Snowden and Pardons will be interesting.
 
I think that people really should be nervous that Amazon was able to flex so much power so easily. I don't know how they do it, I only give them $9 a month.

There are many reasons to boycott Amazon, but this has got to be at the bottom of the pile. And I have been using other retailers, but Amazon's convenience sure isn't worth giving up over this. I don't mind companies not willing to associate with Neofascists.

That being said, for those that want to boycott Amazon and Twitter, I also support their right to express their disapproval. I just think it's a little silly but certainly better than burning stuff and sending death threats.
 
Top Bottom