Hate speech is about promoting or creating hate. Free speech is about an open and frank exchange of views, that has not been censored or misrepresented, or manipulated according to the wishes of some minority activist group or other.
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.
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Free Speech Suppression
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Cool link. Now look at the date. New information suggests that they did it at the behest of political actors, the results of which benefitted one candidate. AKA an in-kind contribution.
FEC finds Twitter didn’t break law by blocking spread of Hunter Biden story
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has ruled that Twitter did not break election laws in October when it blocked users from sharing links to a New York Post story about President Biden’s s…thehill.com
Edgy teenage authoritarians, they think all sorts of asinine logic
Awesome. So the stuff they DO just indebts our children, their children, their children's children... to seemingly no end. You are correct, I don't have to agree with any of it.
It's astonishing. You express an opinion as though it were fact. And yet, even a quick search on the Internet brings up all manner of research papers showing that Ivermectin alone, and in combination with other medication such as doxycycline is indeed an effective treatment for COVID-19. What makes your unsupported opinion more credible than all this research? I think you should separate out your political opinions from what can be based on evidence, because you are plainly in the wrong here.
You do realize that the 6 member commission is split with 3 Democrat commissioners and 3 Republican commissioners so to get a decision some of both parties is necessary. Oh well, so much for conspiracy.
WHAT did they ask to take down? Penis shots. Which is what they would have done for ANYBODY, political or not, because it's a violation of terms.
You're saying taking down a penis shot is an in-kind political contribution? Snicker.
The private companies are free to tell the government to go pound sand because they have a right to free speech as well. But, freedom of speech is NOT absolute. You can’t, for example, yell “Fire!” In a crowded theater, creating panic. You are also not allowed to disseminate classified material which could put Americans at risk. When people like marjorie Taylor, Greene, or Donald Trump incite an insurrection or transmit dangerous lies about a pandemic, the companies are well within their rights to ban them from their platform. As they should. Those offenders can go yell it out on a street corner.
I read the link and what it said is that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito commented that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but he's wrong because Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes also said you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but he was just saying that free speech isn't absolute and the Supreme Court hasn't specifically ruled on "fire" example.
So we have a random libertarian blog asserting that two Supreme Court Justices are wrong when they say "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an example of unprotected speech.
Frankly, I'd say if it's a good enough example for Oliver Wendell Holmes to use, it's a good enough example for @SFjohn to use and Samuel Alito seems to agree...
Oh my gosh. Can we please stop with the fire in a crowded theater myth. Look it up. Get a new example.
Finally! I'm glad that we have politicians standing up for Free Speech instead of working to suppress people.
Only weak people try to stifle the free exchange of ideas.
Only weak people try to stifle the free exchange of ideas.
Give me a break. Twitter is reinstated actual terrorists yet won’t reinstate me when the limit of my ban is for standing up against racism, homophobia, and transphobia.
A “quick search on the Internet” will bring up all manner of “research papers” showing that cold fusion is the secret zero-point energy source that Elvis uses in his Jewish Space Laser Flying Saucer to commute between his two-headed stepson’s place in Elon Musk’s Martian Playboy mansion and his home with Sasquatch in Kalamazoo.
Me? I like to get my medical facts from actual … what’s the word? Ah, yes … “doctors.” Like those at the Mayo Clinic:
Debunking COVID-19 myths
Some information you come across about COVID-19 may be out of date or false. Learn about COVID-19 myths so you can bust them when you see them.
www.mayoclinic.org
Unless you want to claim that the Mayo Clinic is part of some grand super-conspiracy to keep the truth about Elvis from the sheeple?
(And, if you do want to seriously make such claims, please, in all sincerity, seek the services of a competent mental health practitioner. You don’t need to suffer the way you currently are.)
b&
You'd think after the disastrous Twitter hearing, they'd be giving up on this
LOL, this has to be a joke, right? "I hate pineapple" is not an example of "hate speech".
I just generally assume that anyone who tries to claim there’s no such thing as hate speech and uses examples like pineapple pizza are one of those folks that are mostly just salty they cant use the n word, with a hard r, anymore without getting dunked on for being racist.
Apple very much suppressed free speech by not allowing Parler to be on the IOS platform. Apple is a censorship-driven company and that is wrong.
I am grateful that the GOP is against censorship and is taking big tech to the mat over it.
I am grateful that the GOP is against censorship and is taking big tech to the mat over it.
Apple removed Parler from the app store - so yes, they very much engage in censorship.
Okay - but they should no longer have rights to their Section 230 protections then, meaning people can sue Twitter for defamation. Twitter gets Section 230 protections because they declare themselves neutral - when in reality, they editorialize through choice - so - they should be open to being sued then without protection. Same applies to Apple, in regard to the commentators banned, by proxy, from the Parler removal.
Fox News does not suppress liberal voices? Rightwing talk radio and Rush Zlombaugh gave equal time to the left?
Apparently they violated the terms of agreement.
I find the whole thing rather comical given that these technology companies (not the individual employees but the organisation itself) donate massive amounts of money to super pacs etc. which in turn support Republicans only for the Republicans to then turn on the hand that feeds them. It is difficult to feel sorry for the very companies that enabled all this to happen - kind of like the colloquially known 'don't say the gay' bill whose representatives that voted for it received donations from Disney only for Disney to be found out resulting in a backlash from progressives which then resulted in Disney making an announcement to only then received backlash from the Republicans. Maybe this is a lesson that businesses need to learn - don't try to play both sides because eventually you'll be found out.
Side note: Big Tech does need to be investigated but not for the reasons outlined by the Republicans. It's almost a near constant habit of Republicans identifying a problem but identify it for the wrong reasons. Yes, Big Tech is a problem but it has more to do with algorithms that are set to play people off against each other for the sake of increased engagement and thus increased ad revenue, the concentration of online advertisement where there are two hugely dominant players resulting in ad prices being more expensive than they otherwise would be if there was a competitive market etc.
Side note: Big Tech does need to be investigated but not for the reasons outlined by the Republicans. It's almost a near constant habit of Republicans identifying a problem but identify it for the wrong reasons. Yes, Big Tech is a problem but it has more to do with algorithms that are set to play people off against each other for the sake of increased engagement and thus increased ad revenue, the concentration of online advertisement where there are two hugely dominant players resulting in ad prices being more expensive than they otherwise would be if there was a competitive market etc.