Has Elon Musk lost his mind or?…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Lucky said:
I always assumed the Bible didn’t get censored because the obscene or otherwise contentious bits were in archaic language so it’s alright then. But that doesn’t account for the more modern translations though so I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 23 - King James Version

The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. And the names of...
www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com
Even the KJV is pretty clear, and modern versions are common in schools too. Pretty much the entire chapter is shocking, and verse 20 is even more so. That's just the tip of the iceberg with the amount of overt sexual content, atrocities, and approval of genocide the bible contains.

I've assumed the bible doesn't get censored is because either many (most?) of them haven't bothered to read the entire book (if they read it at all outside of church), or because they are outright hypocrites.

Mr Lucky said:
I'm finding it harder and harder to understand what people mean by free speech. (This isn't aimed at anyone here specifically) but I have seen quite a few people lauding Free Speech as a phrase/concept and then quoting the 1st amendment but then I don't know if they mean it the same way as the founding fathers envisaged it or in the same way Elon Musk does. ie when it suits him and not really to do with what it says in the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm saying something you probably agree with, but will state it anyway for my own point. :)

The 1st amendment doesn't apply (with exceptions), on web properties owned by others. They set their rules for speech, just as we all do for our site(s). It's the public's space where the 1st amendment kicks in. My issue with Musk is he claims one thing, because he didn't care for the left lean Twitter had, then turns around and does the same thing towards the right. He's a hypocrite at best, and he's done this across the businesses he's been involved with.
 
MySiteGuy said:
If it has over sexual content, yes.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t be fair to treat the two as if they are identical. The film industry has established a precedent over the past 56 years by consistently using ratings such as G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.

Here are the guidelines for MPAA ratings:
Rating Assignment: A rating is assigned based on general guidelines:
  • G (General Audiences): Suitable for all ages.
  • PG (Parental Guidance Suggested): Some material may not be suitable for children.
  • PG-13: Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
  • R (Restricted): Viewers under 17 require an accompanying adult.
  • NC-17: No one 17 and under admitted.
Click to expand...

Under MPAA ratings what would you establish this to be:
frm said:
https://www.noleftturn.us/wp-conten...f-pictures-from-Gender-Queer-five-pages-1.pdf
Click to expand...

Compared to the most horrific sexual instances in the Bible (literature, not illustrations), which already has an 8th-grade reading level:

The Bible said:

Positive Portrayals of Sexuality (Within Marriage)​

  1. Genesis 1:28 - "Be fruitful and multiply."
  2. Genesis 2:24 - "A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
  3. Song of Solomon (entire book) - A poetic celebration of love and sexual intimacy within marriage.
  4. Proverbs 5:18-19 - "Rejoice in the wife of your youth... Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight."
  5. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 - Instructions on mutual marital rights and sexual relations.

Warnings Against Sexual Immorality​

  1. Exodus 20:14 - "You shall not commit adultery."
  2. Leviticus 18:6-23 - Prohibitions against various forms of sexual immorality, including incest, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality.
  3. Deuteronomy 22:13-30 - Laws concerning sexual behavior and consequences of immorality.
  4. Matthew 5:27-28 - Jesus warns that even looking at someone lustfully is committing adultery in the heart.
  5. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 - "Flee from sexual immorality... Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit."
  6. Galatians 5:19-21 - Sexual immorality is listed among the "works of the flesh."
  7. Ephesians 5:3 - "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality..."
  8. Colossians 3:5 - "Put to death... sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed."
  9. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 - "It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality..."
  10. Hebrews 13:4 - "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure."

Accounts of Sexual Behavior or Consequences​

  1. Genesis 19:5-8 - The story of Lot and the men of Sodom.
  2. Genesis 38:8-10 - Onan's act of spilling his seed.
  3. 2 Samuel 11:2-4 - David and Bathsheba's adulterous encounter.
  4. Judges 16:1-22 - Samson and Delilah.
  5. John 8:3-11 - The woman caught in adultery and Jesus' response.
These references show how the Bible addresses sexuality in various contexts, from the sacredness of marital intimacy to the consequences of immoral behavior. For further context, consider reading each passage fully to understand its cultural and theological significance.
Click to expand...

I would put Gender Queer at an NC-17 as I have never seen full-on oral sex, whether depicted with a toy or not, in any R-rated movie. Though, since it's illustrative, I could place it at an R rating. Mind you, this is only 5 pages of the book. I have not seen the rest to gauge whether it could remain R or be a hard NC-17. Either way, R requires a parent to be present, while NC-17 would be an absolute no-go in the school library.

As far as the Bible goes, I would place it in the PG-13 category, which would require parental permission to check out or read, and be fitting for a middle school or high school library.

I'd love to hear how you would rate the two, genuinely curious, as you just throw out "over sexual content" without really digging into the reading of it and think that sodomy is explicitly explained or detailed on how to do (as it may be shown in Gender Queer, I don't know). Take your time reading them and let me know where it'd fit.

My conclusion would be that since Gender Queer is R/NC-17, by MPAA standards (using those as there is a graphical representation of sexual acts) it shouldn't appear in any high school; college, sure. However, the Bible, at PG-13, could be in middle school libraries, accessible with parental consent, and even elementary with stories excluding such material, only containing children's illustrated versions of short stories like Noah's Ark, etc.
 
MySiteGuy said:
The 1st amendment doesn't apply (with exceptions), on web properties owned by others. They set their rules for speech, just as we all do for our site(s). It's the public's space where the 1st amendment kicks in. My issue with Musk is he claims one thing, because he didn't care for the left lean Twitter had, then turns around and does the same thing towards the right. He's a hypocrite at best, and he's done this across the businesses he's been involved with.
Click to expand...
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply, but protection under Section 230 should apply if you choose to not have a heavy hand in moderation.

I've already made the point that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

What it comes down to is the loose interpretation of Section 230, and how it was (and might still be) abused to censor content as a "Platform" to have protection over what users post.

When you moderate content to such a degree, you should no longer be a Platform, and instead be a Publisher.
 
frm said:
It wouldn’t be fair to treat the two as if they are identical. The film industry has established a precedent over the past 56 years by consistently using ratings such as G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.
Click to expand...
The film industry example isn't a good one. The film industry is the private sector, and enforcement is up to each theater. It was, and still is, extremely common for theaters not to enforce the ratings regardless of parents being there.

It's quite a bit different from using the force of government to impose censorship.

frm said:
Compared to the most horrific sexual instances in the Bible (literature, not illustrations), which already has an 8th-grade reading level:

I would put Gender Queer at an NC-17 as I have never seen full-on oral sex, whether depicted with a toy or not, in any R-rated movie. Though, since it's illustrative, I could place it at an R rating. Mind you, this is only 5 pages of the book. I have not seen the rest to gauge whether it could remain R or be a hard NC-17. Either way, R requires a parent to be present, while NC-17 would be an absolute no-go in the school library.

As far as the Bible goes, I would place it in the PG-13 category, which would require parental permission to check out or read, and be fitting for a middle school or high school library.
Click to expand...

Double-standard.

frm said:
I'd love to hear how you would rate the two, genuinely curious, as you just throw out "over sexual content" without really digging into the reading of it and think that sodomy is explicitly explained or detailed on how to do (as it may be shown in Gender Queer, I don't know). Take your time reading them and let me know where it'd fit.

My conclusion would be that since Gender Queer is R/NC-17, by MPAA standards (using those as there is a graphical representation of sexual acts) it shouldn't appear in any high school; college, sure. However, the Bible, at PG-13, could be in middle school libraries, accessible with parental consent, and even elementary with stories excluding such material, only containing children's illustrated versions of short stories like Noah's Ark, etc.
Click to expand...

You're making a case for something that doesn't generally happen, in order to make a case for something that does happen:
Parental approval of the bible isn't required
versus
Parental approval for similar topics when it's not a religious text, or outright banned.

The standard isn't consistent. I'll be more inclined to believe the scenario you put forth to be sincere when I see religious people calling for this consistency at school board meetings. The real situation on the ground is quite different from the theoretical case you make.
 
frm said:
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply, but protection under Section 230 should apply if you choose to not have a heavy hand in moderation.

I've already made the point that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

What it comes down to is the loose interpretation of Section 230, and how it was (and might still be) abused to censor content as a "Platform" to have protection over what users post.

When you moderate content to such a degree, you should no longer be a Platform, and instead be a Publisher.
Click to expand...

And what of the 200+ years of the press picking which letters and topics go into the editorial section? Those are 100% moderated, yet they've had general immunity. Saying websites shouldn't have this same immunity isn't consistent in my view.

Frankly, I believe those who argue the platforms shouldn't have the same immunity only made this argument when it's their side that isn't favored. For example, Twitter suddenly became okay with the right and shouldn't be regulated by the government after Elon took over, but the right certainly wanted that regulation before it was taken over.

And before anyone brings the subject up: I'm just as against the "free speech zones" the left erected on public universities, and "shout down" censorship many of them engage in.
 
MySiteGuy said:
And what of the 200+ years of the press picking which letters and topics go into the editorial section? Those are 100% moderated, yet they've had general immunity. Saying websites shouldn't have this same immunity isn't consistent in my view.
Click to expand...
That is coming to an end soon enough...


Edit: While it's apples and oranges, as you mentioned the editorial section, but they won't be protected as a platform and still retain publisher status and be liable for their pickings, so they ought to pick better going forward.
 
Defamation isn't the same. Defamation has never had free speech protection since the first precedent cases.

1. A business can be liable for defamation they put on social media, but the platform is not liable.
2. This wasn't a court decision, and has no force of precedent. It is an out-of-court settlement.
 
frm said:
I've already made the point that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that apply to everyone, even the most oppressed people living in the darkest corners of the world? Everyone can say what they want but there may be consequences?
 
zappaDPJ said:
Doesn't that apply to everyone, even the most oppressed people living in the darkest corners of the world? Everyone can say what they want but there may be consequences?
Click to expand...
If strictly speaking speech, yes. But when applied to the context of the First Amendment in the US, no.
MySiteGuy said:
2. This wasn't a court decision, and has no force of precedent. It is an out-of-court settlement.
Click to expand...
More suits to come, hopefully. Only one has to go to the courts for a verdict, which won't be too hard with newly appointed federal judges, and hopefully to the Supreme Court.
 
The saga between Elon and Laura Loomer seems to be dying down a bit she isn’t letting up on the tech bros and politics. 🤷‍♀️
 
Regarding bible, writer did not know that there was an earth for millions years ago before men created & dinosaurs lived in it.
Each animal was a trial to create something special like human, the creator's aim was, but never mind, all have their own rights in what to beleive.

regarding Musk, even twitter does not allow free speech, it is a trick to get democrats down & he did succeed his mission!
social media has become simple propaganda instruments, meta, google, x, tiktok chinese, even Apple obey USA government, all used for their own interests, they don''t give a **** about human rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom