Speech about Covid-19 is "Hate speech?" Could you please explain?
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
Why does the party that is doing everything possible to dismantle free elections have any interest in free speech? Makes you wonder what free speech means to them.
Not a myth. It was only slightly overturned in 1969 to clarify specifics of non protected speech. The analogy is still relevant especially in this situation. The freedom of speech is not absolute and is only protected from the government curbing speech, not private entities.
Part of the issue tho is that, as we are finding out (thanks to GOP subpoenas) the federal govt told Twitter which accounts to block and censor.
So - that's a massive violation of the constitution. If Twitter, as a private company, blocks someone, then we can go through the argument of fairness - but in this case, the govt openly dictated to twitter who should be blocked. That is a massive constitutional violation.
Um, does taking the vaccine prevent you from contracting Covid? Does it prevent you from spreading it?
From what I can see, being up on Vitamin D and zinc are about as effective as the the vaccine.
That's a hypocritical argument if I ever saw one.
Tesla Laboratories Maricopa report showed that in the 2020 Maricopa election -- 15% of ballots were printed on fake paper (accounted for about 300k ballots) and thousands of ballots had the exact same 'machine-printed' mark in the selection ovals.
I can tell you right now - the majority of those ballots were not for Trump (lol).
Lol - they're being subpoenaed because the good GOP house would like to know exactly what terms were violated.
Agreed. It is collusion between socialist government and corporate capitalist governance.
Try reading the “Twitter Files”. It’s all there in black and white as violations of their own terms of use contract with users. What makes it worse is the degree that government agencies have directly colluded with Twitter and, likely, most of big corporate tech to directly interfere with freedom of speech and the promulgation of political propaganda.
Unless? No doubt that they were coerced and even appreciated being coerced.
“U.S. House Judiciary Committee Republicans plan to investigate whether the federal government ‘colluded’ with tech companies to ‘suppress free speech’ on issues like COVID-19.”
Interesting that you present as fact what the Judiciary Committee has yet to establish. If there are so many instances, perhaps you could point to a few documented cases.
Elon has directly supplied all of the documentary evidence of what happened before he bought Twitter in the Twitter Files. It’s obviously clear to any objective observer that the evidence of government agency collision and implied coercion is the foundation of the resulting censorship.
Exactly look who’s in the white house.
Provide a single instance where anyone in the government demanded/ordered/required/commanded Twitter to take any action on any content. Asking, requesting, inquiring, informing, etc. excluded.
App store review maybe? Since they do judge for content as well as functionality.
I agree it’s a stretch.
I saw the date. There is literally no “new information” to change the FEC’s conclusion. An incidental benefit—particularly one so vague, uncertain, and unprovable as what you’re alleging—is not an in-kind contribution.
Congress is just as bad, and the state and local governments all the way down. It’s incredible anything in this country works.
It’s a lot of the unelected career people that hold it together.
To be fair this is exactly what the issue with the Patriot Act gag orders was all about. They can do it, and forbid anyone from talking about it. So it can’t really be proven or disproven. This is what warrant canaries are theoretically for.
“I can’t provide any evidence because I didn’t actually read the Twitter files and am just parroting talking points from Fox News.”
Right, but if you cannot see the difference between that and, say, yelling “fire!” in a crowded movie theater, conspiring to commit a crime, threats, harassment, telling people to avoid life-saving medical treatment based on conspiracy theories with no basis in reality, and even libel/slander, etc, then you do not understand “free speech”
I’m fine with this. I think our government, both political parties, have a lit to figure out when it comes to speech online. All of these things are generally good, IMO, because it can help us to better understand the role these companies play in ensuring free speech for years to come.
