Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Donít worry, itís not really government censorship

  1. #1
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    20,071

    Donít worry, itís not really government censorship

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersu...h=109b98a45b39

    whoosh! Thanks to this Forbes article, I don’t really have to worry about the White House inserting itself into content it does not like on Facebook. Because the White House is not really removing the content. Because it’s not really controlling the content, exactly. Not explicitly, nosiree. The White House is merely making “proposals” to Facebook about how FB handles “misinformation”

    But seriously, to those of us who live in reality, this is a step towards governmental censorship, a rather large step. Let us all remember that misinformation is protected under the first amendment right to free speech along with accurate information.
    Last edited by iris lilies; 7-25-21 at 6:48pm.

  2. #2
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,305
    How do you propose we deal with the disinformation that is causing people to distrust the vaccines and result in hospitals/morgues? Or is it not a problem that people are believing the lies and ending up in hospitals/morgues?

  3. #3
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    20,071
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    How do you propose we deal with the disinformation that is causing people to distrust the vaccines and result in hospitals/morgues? Or is it not a problem that people are believing the lies and ending up in hospitals/morgues?

    There’s all kinds of “misinformation” that is none of the government’s goddamn business to put pressure on anyone to remove.

    Let the government fund research to provide “the science “ as a beacon of correct information. But of course as we all know even that process gets it wrong or ****s it up sometimes, but never mind that! If the government is compelled to spend my tax dollars to run its own campaign of “correct information” as it does with many social issues, so be it. Whatever I don’t much like it, but that is not out and out censorship.

    This pressure on FB is too close to actual censorship to be comfortable.

  4. #4
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    12,487
    The interesting fact in that article is something I really didn't know and that is, Facebook isn't subject to First Amendment violations because it is a private company.

    The rest of the article is interesting as well--and the analysis of the thinking behind yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and how that relates to misinformation about COVID.

    The only thing I worry about social media is that it is a different beast. I do think this is a new day and we need some determination of appropriate controls on the misinformation that's permitted to spread. The fact that content spreads so quickly, and by unreliable sources, and with nothing more than a handful of words in a meme to influence peers and misinform or incite in ways that traditional journalism never could is scary and requires examination.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  5. #5
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    20,071
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    The interesting fact in that article is something I really didn't know and that is, Facebook isn't subject to First Amendment violations because it is a private company.

    The rest of the article is interesting as well--and the analysis of the thinking behind yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and how that relates to misinformation about COVID.

    The only thing I worry about social media is that it is a different beast. I do think this is a new day and we need some determination of appropriate controls on the misinformation that's permitted to spread. The fact that content spreads so quickly, and by unreliable sources, and with nothing more than a handful of words in a meme to influence peers and misinform or incite in ways that traditional journalism never could is scary and requires examination.
    Our First Amendment limits what the GOVERNMENT may do and it may not Limit my free speech.

    The Internet scares you so therefore you want to give up your rights to freedom.Nanny will protect us. Every time Nanny takes a step toward protection, we lose a freedom.People we’re scared about brown men flying planes into tall buildings and we have been stuck with the freedom limiting Patriot Act and it’s such a non-issue to most Americans that they don’t even think about it any more.

    But we need to think about it. And every White House since 9/11 has embraced it. You didn’t see the precious Obama over his eight year span getting rid of it did you? No of course not.Is serves a purpose for the federal government to keep trying to control on its constituents.

    You may not give up my freedom and you may not speak for me. If you want it gone,then change the first amendment. There is a process for that.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    11,732
    I totally agree with you IL.

  7. #7
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    12,487
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    Our First Amendment limits what the GOVERNMENT may do and it may not Limit my free speech.


    The Internet scares you so therefore you want to give up your rights to freedom.Nanny will protect us. Every time Nanny takes a step toward protection, we lose a freedom.

    You may not give up my freedom and you may not speak for me. If you want it gone,then change the first amendment. There is a process for that.
    No, I don't want to step on our First Amendment rights. In fact I was a very unpopular Man-In-The-Street once in the 70s when the question was "should flag-burning be legal?" And my response was "Yes, because free speech is so important." I was the only one that said that among the 5-6 people interviewed by our local paper. I still feel the same way.

    What I am suggesting is that instead of letting social media run ripshod over us without us even thinking about it, I'm suggesting that we need to seriously look at its impacts. So much of social media is very good--but it is so new that we haven't had a chance to think about the downside--and there is a downside. For the same reason that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, exceptions to laws must always be considered for the common good.

    I don't want the government to censor social media CONTENT necessarily, and at the same time, the sophistication and speed of its tools is scary--manipulating search engines, collecting personal data and using it without our knowledge, shaping what content goes to which user without the user's input...all this has serious implications for the culture-at-large.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    20,071
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    No, I don't want to step on our First Amendment rights. In fact I was a very unpopular Man-In-The-Street once in the 70s when the question was "should flag-burning be legal?" And my response was "Yes, because free speech is so important." I was the only one that said that among the 5-6 people interviewed by our local paper. I still feel the same way.

    What I am suggesting is that instead of letting social media run ripshod over us without us even thinking about it, I'm suggesting that we need to seriously look at its impacts. So much of social media is very good--but it is so new that we haven't had a chance to think about the downside--and there is a downside. For the same reason that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, exceptions to laws must always be considered for the common good.

    I don't want the government to censor social media CONTENT necessarily, and at the same time, the sophistication and speed of its tools is scary--manipulating search engines, collecting personal data and using it without our knowledge, shaping what content goes to which user without the user's input...all this has serious implications for the culture-at-large.
    I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, so you will have to show me the very specific exceptions you are talking about.

    I actually have serious concern about Twitter Jack and Zuck and that crowd making their own limiting decisions on content based on their politics because there is the idea that big tech was licensed as a tech platform only. big tech was not intended to make content.

    If they are going to manipulate content, they need F.CC type regulation to keep the content fair and balanced in point of view.

    But I do not have much faith that the federal government can do this appropriate regulation anyway, so once again, I think we’re all FCKED.

  9. #9
    Senior Member razz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    7,768
    Wow, IL, I read that article twice and didn't see what you are so upset about. The professor seemed to indicate that the government has as much right to speak up and protest as you do about misinformation recognizing the First Amendment jurisdiction but you seem to disagree.
    In your opinion, what is the role of any government body when mass misinformation is being released and spread? Gov't funding of "science" is valuable and presently being shared but if the true facts funded by gov't and delivered by reliable sources are being flooded out by misinformation on social media, will you step up and correct the misinformation? If not you, then who?
    As Cicero said, ďGratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.Ē

  10. #10
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    12,487
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, so you will have to show me the very specific exceptions you are talking about.
    In addition to the specific example the article references, and I referred to twice (you can't yell Fire in a crowded theatre):

    In the United States, some categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing limitations on certain categories of speech.[1]

    Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •