so would it be fair to say, that it’s a lie when you said that it applies to any age based off parents discretion?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Elon Musk Is Officially Purchasing Twitter for $44 Billion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Either is the argument that its widespread.
No. I simply disagree than the Hunter Biden NY Post story was one of the "incredibly important cases at crucial time for our country."
Like I said, you deflected from a simple question. And keep defending Desantis.
Read the part in bold. It's a direct rebuttal of your demand to "Show me where it says in the bill that students can’t “say gay.”"
You're shifting the goalposts. The complaints aren't about the section on notifying parent about emotional distress.
Not currently. Because there currently aren't any Florida state standards for when it would be age-appropriate.
A breakdown of the language in Florida’s so-called ‘don’t say gay’ bill
Here’s key wording in Florida’s House Bill 1557, officially named the “Parental Rights in Education” bill.
Oh, so as in the article says, this summer the rules will be clarified. So a couple months.Not currently. Because there currently aren't any Florida state standards for when it would be age-appropriate.
A breakdown of the language in Florida’s so-called ‘don’t say gay’ bill
Here’s key wording in Florida’s House Bill 1557, officially named the “Parental Rights in Education” bill.www.tampabay.com
So, why the pitchforks? Why is the media telling me, someone who is in LGBTQ, that this is anti-gay or “don’t say gay” law? Are they lying to to me? Not everyone who is gay, agrees with the junk being taught in schools. Especially in grades K-3, kids are impressionable and believe in Santa clause. I wouldn’t want my kid thinking he’s a woman when really he’s a gay man (or a straight man).
I’m not even completely opposed to the idea of a child exploring if they have gender dysphoria, but not that young, and not by teachers. Parents only.
Nope. Next summer.
Because it is a law that prohibits discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity. Just topics that focus on LGBTQ issues. Notably, there's no ban on talking about heterosexual sex with K-3 students in this bill.
It's purposefully vague and purportedly solves a problem that didn't exist. Like anti-CRT laws, it's designed to rally conservative voters.
Last edited:
The 1st Amendment is extremely permissive, which I think is a good thing. But if people think having “free speech“ on a private platform means that it needs to be as permissive as the 1st Amendment, I just point out that that isn’t a viable option.
If they disagree with that, they need to give an real-world example of an establishment or service that has that policy.
We can argue and disagree with where the line is, but just because someone wants to push the line further towards the “permissive“ side doesn’t mean that they are necessarily some greater defender of free speech.
Some of the alternative services, such as Truth Social, that some in this thread have promoted, are more restrictive of speech in some areas that the 1st Amendment protects than Twitter is.
And just because I am making this argument doesn’t mean I agree with the decisions that Twitter has made in the past. If I were in charge, I probably wouldn’t have taken down the nypost story about the Hunter Biden laptop.
My free speech rights mean I’m not required to give a platform to speech I don’t want to promote.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't speak to private company regulation of speech in any way.
But a social media company that wants to model itself in a way that mirrors the US
Constitution is certainly doing a noble thing.
And based off the charts, seems to be a marketable value proposition just like Apple w/ privacy. The people have spoken.
I've seen enough examples to convince me. In fact, you can see the wheels turning at Twitter today, on the news that hundreds of thousands of followers are being subtracted from left-wing politicians and added back to right-wing politicians. It's a blatant admission of bolstering accounts they deemed agreeable and suppressing the ones they don't.
Yes, I can see we disagree on that and I have a feeling it stems from our political differences. If it had been the Russian collusion hoax that had been suppressed the day of the election by Twitter, you might feel differently.
What was the simple question in that case?
Please explain, because I don't see it as anything of the kind. It's rather open-ended.
Not at all, I was simply showing how the law is reasonable and makes allowances for cases where the child may be at harm from parents.
The complaints are broad, and the marketing of the complaints by critics is disingenuous, because they've painted it as censorship, when kids and parents can still speak freely about what ever they want. It's simply an educational directive that has been signed into legislation.
What is your exact position here? Suggest you speak clearly and state it. I hope you've read the article I posted because it analyzes the text of the bill.
I support the bill because I believe in parental choice in the education of their children from K-3. Parents have the right to know what is going on with their children. If someone believes harm may come to the child at home, that's a different story.
It does not “prohibit discussion” among parents or children. That is disingenuous. From the same article—
“Sen. Manny Diaz, R-Hialeah, told the Senate during legislative debate on March 8 that a counselor would not be required to contact a parent if a student comes to them to say “they are confused and they feel like they may be gay.”
In other words, a student can go to a counselor at any time and discuss it.
I think that sounds like a perfect plan. We have the right to offend and the right to be offended in this country.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
And the Supreme Court is made by people, who have their own personal bias as do we all. But the concept of "do no harm" is timeless and free from bias. We should adopt that instead.
Correct. And neither does the Constitution. The difference has been explained in other posts in this thread.
As you said, there are lines.
For example, "free speech" should not protect those who say: "Let's get rid of these dirty foreigners", or "we should bomb this church or mosque", or "let's take out that dude wearing a dress".
Citizens should not be able to advocate violence against another citizen (or human being) and get away with it scot-free under the banner of "free speech".
Did you read the rest of my post? I said that Twitter is more permissive than Truth Social in some ways. Am I wrong?
again…
Truth Social does not “mirror the US constitution” in any substantial way, so you can’t use its popularity to support the claim that people want a service that “mirrors” the 1st Amendment speech rights guaranteed by the US constitution.
Would you say the same thing about a newspaper that publishes everything that’s said regardless of truth? I certainly wouldn’t call that noble.
"Mirroring the US constitution", as a guiding principle and main goal of any digital communication space, is honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
In the similar way, and for similar reasons, I'd never go to a bar that had "no rules beyond what the constitution says you can do".
Why?
Because the experience would be awful for many, if not most, people
In the similar way, and for similar reasons, I'd never go to a bar that had "no rules beyond what the constitution says you can do".
Why?
Because the experience would be awful for many, if not most, people
It seems that some want to participate in a space with massive audience and reach, while being able to say and do anything they want (that's legal).
The reality is -- that will never happen
Not everyone wants to hear what everyone else has to say, and they under no obligation to listen to it (or even be exposed to it).
If Twitter continues to provide ways (and perhaps expand upon them) to block and filter and silence that which is subjectively unpleasant - that's great - but that's also really just running many subgroups within/under one company name.
It's really just a different version of reddit.
The reality is -- that will never happen
Not everyone wants to hear what everyone else has to say, and they under no obligation to listen to it (or even be exposed to it).
If Twitter continues to provide ways (and perhaps expand upon them) to block and filter and silence that which is subjectively unpleasant - that's great - but that's also really just running many subgroups within/under one company name.
It's really just a different version of reddit.
Great thread of many examples where Elon doesn't give a lick about "free speech"
1. There's the time he called Vernon Unsworth, the man who helped rescue 12 boys trapped in a mine in Thailand, a “pedo guy” and paid $50,000 to an investigator to dig up Unsworth’s life. Why? Because Unsworth called his failed attempt help the boys himself a “PR stunt.”
2. Then there's the story of John Bernal, who was fired six days after posting a YouTube video of a Tesla accident.
Tesla fired an employee after he posted driverless tech reviews on YouTube
John Bernal was a Tesla employee who showed FSD Beta to the world on his YouTube channel, AI Addict. He was fired in February.www.cnbc.com
3. Then, there's Martin Tripp, a technician at a Tesla plant in Nevada who blew the whistle on the company. Musk allegedly hired people to hack and spy on Tripp after he cast doubts on Tesla’s environmental credentials.
What Happened When Elon Musk Set Out to Destroy a Junior Engineer
It started with a Twitter meltdown and ended with a fake mass shooter. A former security manager says Tesla also spied and spread misinformation.www.bloomberg.com
4. Musk also is anti free-speech when it comes to labor organizing. Tesla worker Richard Ortiz was fired for trying to organize with the United Auto Workers, a move that was declared illegal by a labor board.
Tesla employee’s firing and Elon Musk tweet on union were illegal, labor board rules. (Published 2021)
The board required that Tesla reinstate the employee and that Mr. Musk delete the tweet. It also required that the company amend its confidentiality agreement.www.nytimes.com
5. Then there's the time Tesla asked China to censor comments that were critical of the company.
Tesla’s Fall From Grace in China Shows Perils of Betting on Beijing
Elon Musk won advantages unheard of for Western businesses. Then came the reality check.
6. There's also the time Musk tried to out an anonymous Tesla critic, and skeptical investor who goes by "Montana Skeptic" to their employer.
Musk is a "free speech absolutist" except when he's not
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, bought Twitter yesterday for about $44 billion. "Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy," Musk said in a press release announcing the deal.popular.info
7. He also has tried to use Twitter itself to suppress worker speech and organizing, a move deemed illegal by the NLRB.
TESLA, INC. | National Labor Relations Board
www.nlrb.gov
These are just a few examples, we're sure to see many more soon as he takes over Twitter. His free speech bravado is just a mask to hide the ways he suppresses speech that goes against his interests. More below.
Elon Musk actually has a very questionable record on free speech | Joshua Potash
Behind the fan base and the funny persona is a billionaire who isn’t afraid to weaponize his wealth against people who provoke his irewww.independent.co.uk
btw - for #2, if I did that about my employer I would be terminated. It is in my contract about posting anything about the company without prior approval. That is not uncommon.
That is already happening, these publishers position themselves as news outlets which makes it deceptive, thus people take it as face value.
The difference is Twitter is a discussion platform, people can and will say what they want
Don’t like it? Go use another platform. I am certainly enjoying seeing you as the top poster count in this thread.
Appears you’re on Elons Twitter more than me.
Messy situation
My main takeaway is that Musk should be nowhere near running a service of "wide open communication"
If anyone thinks he's going to let thing anything fly, as long as it's "legal"
No chance.
Zip, zero - nada
Not with his personality, temperament and history
Supreme Court precedent holds the the 1st Amendment does not protect some of the examples you proffer depending on the context. It draws the line at imminent harm and also does not protect physical threats. It would protect your "dirty foreigners" example though ... but free speech does not protect the speaker from the ramifications of what he or she says. A person who says something like that should be rebutted on the merits and perhaps ostracized by others who know better. This is where an educated population is fundamental to functioning democracy.
Clearly you’ve never owned one. All the Tesla groups on Facebook were posting beta stuff the day it rolled out. When did musk intimidate any of the owners or beta testers? Oh never. It literally says “be selective”.