Am I the only person here who would like Elon to STFU? [CLOSED DUE TO POLITICS]

[RMK!]

Well, I'm a scientist and engineer, one with a specific focus on stats and probability, so you'd have to present evidence that free speech causes hate crimes and not rely on feelings. There is nothing to say the Charlottesville driver attacked because of free speech any more than free speech caused him to beat his mother when she took away his video games. There are lousy people in the world. Serial killers. Mass murderers. Politicians. I don't know that any of them were "created" by free speech, with is the recent common narrative for suppressing it.

And more important than that, is any possible harm created by free speech worse than the harm caused by restrictions? One of the first examples of "cancelling" that I can remember was the Dixie Chicks. They spoke out against the Iraq war and were pretty much shunned from the world as a result. That war cost around 200k lives. That was before social media muting was even a dream. We've seen the recent work to quell dissenting opinions on Covid. A lot of the dissenting opinions have been proven true or possible, (It's not spread by droplets, it may have been made in a lab, Pfizer admitted their vax was not tested and probably does not prevent spread, only reduce symptoms). But people literally could not say those things without flags, muting or banning online. The US gov't worked with social media to attack this "misinformation". There are leaks now that the gov't is also trying to reduce discussion on other "anti-America" topics, like the Afghan pull out. That's terrifying. It's a very quick slide to an authoritarian gov't when you can't have open discussion or question decisions. That's why free speech has to be absolute. As soon as you start having it on a scale, that scale can slide.

You're Canadian ... buzz off.

But seriously the stuff that seems like a revelation to you has been going on for many years in many guises. You see, govt itself isn't the villain, people are and we are all imperfect beings and damn proud of it (some more than others).

 

[Tinker71]

SpaceX just landed 2 heavy boosters. 150/151 Amazing. (Elon yawning) The CT is coming, most problems have been solved. it is just a swing of a couple months at this point.

No wonder Elon is bored and needs to pick fights on Twitter. He needs a challenge.

 

[Daddystired]

As an inadvertent supporter (I own Tesla cars, solar and stock), I used to think Elon was your normal, run of the mill eccentric engineering genius. But with his impulsive desire for attention, this insecure, immature little man is undoing much of the good his obsessive hard work has produced. Elons most ardent "followers" are clearly blind to this Tourettes like behaviour which will only increase in volume and magnitude when applied using his most recently acquired toy. Chief Twit indeed.

I strongly support this Forums "no politics" policy. If only Elon had the wisdom to do the same ...

I mean. At least he’s transparent. ??‍ 420!!!!

 

[TyPope]

Question, does Free Speech Absolutist (FSA) believe it's free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire?

I'm seriously asking. I'm not sure what is meant by FSA.

First Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

"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."

The best example of unprotected speech is falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There can be government sanctions for false speech defined as defamation or libel. Generally, the government may not restrict speech that is either truthful or expresses an opinion.

 

[Bill906]

First Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

"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."

The best example of unprotected speech is falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There can be government sanctions for false speech defined as defamation or libel. Generally, the government may not restrict speech that is either truthful or expresses an opinion.

Yes I understand the first amendment. My question was about "free speech absolutist". I'm getting the impression from the people pro-FSA that it means anyone can say anything they want. Full Stop.

 

[Crissa]

Well, I'm a scientist and engineer, one with a specific focus on stats and probability, so you'd have to present evidence that free speech causes hate crimes and not rely on feelings. There is nothing to say the Charlottesville driver attacked because of free speech any more than free speech caused him to beat his mother when she took away his video games. There are lousy people in the world. Serial killers. Mass murderers. Politicians. I don't know that any of them were "created" by free speech, with is the recent common narrative for suppressing it.

And more important than that, is any possible harm created by free speech worse than the harm caused by restrictions? One of the first examples of "cancelling" that I can remember was the Dixie Chicks. They spoke out against the Iraq war and were pretty much shunned from the world as a result. That war cost around 200k lives. That was before social media muting was even a dream. We've seen the recent work to quell dissenting opinions on Covid. A lot of the dissenting opinions have been proven true or possible, (It's not spread by droplets, it may have been made in a lab, Pfizer admitted their vax was not tested and probably does not prevent spread, only reduce symptoms). But people literally could not say those things without flags, muting or banning online. The US gov't worked with social media to attack this "misinformation". There are leaks now that the gov't is also trying to reduce discussion on other "anti-America" topics, like the Afghan pull out. That's terrifying. It's a very quick slide to an authoritarian gov't when you can't have open discussion or question decisions. That's why free speech has to be absolute. As soon as you start having it on a scale, that scale can slide.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publ...redicts-frequency-of-real-life-hate-crim.html

Allowing small-scale harassment will always precede larger, more extreme scale harassment.

I don't know how to convince you of something which is so predictable. That you seem intent to ignore the death and destruction from.

It's up to you to prove why you think the 'unite the right' rally was an outlier.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

Iran and Nazi Germany are examples of people being killed because of speaking in a place where free speech is banned. I don't know that anyone was killed BECAUSE of the words. They were killed to prevent the words.

Nazi Germany is what happened when Nazis abused free speech in Germany and directed their ire at minorities.

-Crissa

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publ...redicts-frequency-of-real-life-hate-crim.html

Allowing small-scale harassment will always precede larger, more extreme scale harassment.

I don't know how to convince you of something which is so predictable. That you seem intent to ignore the death and destruction from.

It's up to you to prove why you think the 'unite the right' rally was an outlier.

-Crissa

To convince me you'd actually have to show data that proves it to be the case. This most recent study you shared actually makes the argument in the opposite direction. You're saying free speech CAUSES violence. That study doesn't, in any way say that. It says that violent, racist people tweet violent racist things, not that the tweets make them do things. It actually makes the case for allowing free speech, because we can see a swelling of anger or frustration and maybe take action to address it in a better way. If the speech is barred, the frustrations just go underground.

The "unite the right" rally isn't an outlier in human behavior. Rallies for causes often build energy to the point they overflow. The 2020 race riots. Jan 6. Some recent Trans talks have shown some pretty crazy/gross stuff with violence, spitting and death threats. Just because some people want to kill JK Rowling doesn't mean that trans activists in general should be banned from speaking or tweeting. It also doesn't mean their expressing of opinions online is going to cause someone to kill JK.

 

[TyPope]

Yes I understand the first amendment. My question was about "free speech absolutist". I'm getting the impression from the people pro-FSA that it means anyone can say anything they want. Full Stop.

Oh. Duh. I can see where my response looks like I was sarcastically showing you the amendment. That was not my intent. Sorry. I was putting it there because doing so lets people read the actual words to set a baseline for discussion.
Free speech is about what the government can and can't do to limit speech and has zero to do with how a business functions. For instance, while Colin Kapernick has the governmental right to kneel during the National Anthem, the NFL is allowed to prohibit him from doing so while representing their own business. The Government also prohibited me from kneeling for the Anthem or other political shows while I was in uniform. Free speech has never meant free to do whatever you want. I'm not sure what the FSA people mean but I think what they really mean is "Anything should be allowed as long as I agree with it." or "If it doesn't directly hurt me, it should be okay." I agree with neither. There should be some kind of limit to speech that directly hurts others. Like making up a lie about someone that is so believable that the person ends up getting killed by a believer. Swatting is an example. Calling the police on someone by pretending to be held hostage at their house resulting on SWAT breaking down their door thinking they are saving a kid when in reality, it's just some gamer who pissed off someone online.

Who gets to decide what's dangerous "free speech" (which should be banned) vs. controversial free speech (which SHOULD be allowed)? I don't know.

 

[firsttruck]

.....
One of the first examples of "cancelling" that I can remember was the Dixie Chicks. They spoke out against the Iraq war and were pretty much shunned from the world as a result. That war cost around 200k lives.
....

You seem to forgotten alot.

The Dixie Chicks were not shunned by most of the world.

They were shunned and threatened with violence by the same reactionaries, authoritarians and misogynists that are causing problems today.

The same people who whine about being cancelled yet still have the huge megaphone and still have enormous political power which they have been using to take away the rights of others.

A lot more than 200k lives lost in Iraq because of lies by U.S. administration in the 2000s.

 

[firsttruck]

Well, I'm a scientist and engineer, one with a specific focus on stats and probability, so you'd have to present evidence that free speech causes hate crimes and not rely on feelings. ....

....
Free speech has never meant free to do whatever you want. I'm not sure what the FSA people mean but I think what they really mean is "Anything should be allowed as long as I agree with it." or "If it doesn't directly hurt me, it should be okay." I agree with neither. There should be some kind of limit to speech that directly hurts others. Like making up a lie about someone that is so believable that the person ends up getting killed by a believer. Swatting is an example. Calling the police on someone by pretending to be held hostage at their house resulting on SWAT breaking down their door thinking they are saving a kid when in reality, it's just some gamer who pissed off someone online.

Who gets to decide what's dangerous "free speech" (which should be banned) vs. controversial free speech (which SHOULD be allowed)? I don't know.

Yup, the SWATing example is an excellent example of where lies were used to kill & injure people and even additionally their pets ( police shoot even happy dogs don't they ?? !! YES, they do).

So here are two real world examples, yelling fire when you know there is none and swatting.

If absolute free speech is only priority then no punishments are given to liars.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Nazi Germany is what happened when Nazis abused free speech in Germany and directed their ire at minorities.

-Crissa

Point 23 of their election platform is literally the end of independent press.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Yup, the SWATing example is an excellent example of where lies were used to kill & injure people and even additionally their pets ( police shoot even happy dogs don't they ?? !! YES, they do).

So here are two real world examples, yelling fire when you know there is none and swatting.

If absolute free speech is only priority then no punishments are given to liars.

No. Absolute free speech is simply that. You're allowed to say things. No deplatorming. No cutting your phone lines or banning use of the post office. Just as you are free to move or gather. If in your gathering you decide to run over some other gathering with your car, you've committed a separate offence and can be sentenced to 400 years in prison.

Same with free speech. Say what you want. If your words say something that is illegal to say, you can be charged. But that's more for police and law enforcement - and court. Removing something legal because some Twitter worker doesn't like it, is different. Suppressing content that the government of the day doesn't like is very, very different.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Spreading the lie that Donald Trump actually won the election and it was stolen from him, is that covered under the right to say whatever you want? Because saying that directly caused the January 6th riots.

How do you know it's a lie?

 

[Crissa]

To convince me you'd actually have to show data that proves it to be the case. This most recent study you shared actually makes the argument in the opposite direction. You're saying free speech CAUSES violence. That study doesn't, in any way say that. It says that violent, racist people tweet violent racist things, not that the tweets make them do things. It actually makes the case for allowing free speech, because we can see a swelling of anger or frustration and maybe take action to address it in a better way. If the speech is barred, the frustrations just go underground.

The "unite the right" rally isn't an outlier in human behavior. Rallies for causes often build energy to the point they overflow. The 2020 race riots. Jan 6. Some recent Trans talks have shown some pretty crazy/gross stuff with violence, spitting and death threats. Just because some people want to kill JK Rowling doesn't mean that trans activists in general should be banned from speaking or tweeting. It also doesn't mean their expressing of opinions online is going to cause someone to kill JK.

Yes, I have no further reason to read your trolling, if you're going to lie about the study I linked to and the dozens and dozens of deaths associated with hate speech,

And I'm not going to touch the remainder of your trolling, just going to leave what 'free speech' turns to harassment when there's no repercussions between nothing and criminal.




No one owes you a platform. Not even a soapbox in the public square.

-Crissa