Has Elon Musk lost his mind or?…

Status
Not open for further replies.
MySiteGuy said:
In the USA, 2 centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree with you, by people far more familiar with law and it's principles than either of us have.



False.

Fighting words, defamation, threats that convey a serious intent to commit violence, incitement of violence, incitement to suicide, false statements of fact, commercial speech, speech owned by others, counterfeiting, making threats to the President, violations of privacy, state secrets, some forms of obscenity, speech in the capacity of a government official, restrictions on those in the military, inmate speech, and more, are SCOTUS backed restrictions on free speech.

None of the Bill of Rights are absolute. They can and do have exceptions. For example, try building a nuclear weapon and see how far claiming you have a 2nd amendment right gets you.
Click to expand...

Please educate me as to these limitations are?
 
Arantor said:
While in principle I agree with you, the problem is that it doesn’t work that way, at least not online.

If someone goes shooting their mouth with a bunch of deeply racist commentary, what’s the consequence? Plenty of places will let that commentary go unaddressed, which is why the jump to “freedom of speech becomes freedom from consequence”.

The places that don’t let it go unaddressed are then labelled as censoring, because that’s the only online consequence - to take the commentary down and/or prevent the speaker making more of it.

So what’s the answer that permits freedom of speech, doesn’t protect from consequence but then also upholds the consequence as the consequence?
Click to expand...
You in control of the ignore button.
 
Seeker-Smith said:
You in control of the ignore button.
Click to expand...
Yes but according to the thoughts posted previously, we shouldn’t use the ignore button so we know who the racist people are, rather than driving them underground. Which to me sounds awfully like ensuring a lack of consequences for actions.
 
MySiteGuy said:
Are you okay with school libraries have books with stories comparing a man's genitals to a donkey and his emissions to a horse, daughters getting their father drunk so they can have sex with him, delighting in dashing children against rocks, killing everyone in a city except virgin women, to be taken for sex? Or offering your virgin daughters to a crowd assembled outside your home? Approving of genocide? There's a book in most schools right now with this content and so many atrocities and content that shouldn't be there, yet it's approved by hypocrites.

And FYI, there are plenty of books libraries (and not just school libraries) are censoring that isn't overt sexual content, but being censored because racists don't like the points of view, and they don't want stories with LGBTQ+ themes even when there is no overt sexual content.

But you went straight to the overt sexual content, and not the topicality - which is intellectually dishonest at best.
Click to expand...
Those sure are a lot of words for, "I want this in school libraries so that children can see it any time they wish without their paren't permission."
frm said:
https://www.noleftturn.us/wp-conten...f-pictures-from-Gender-Queer-five-pages-1.pdf
Click to expand...
Yikes on bikes. 🤮

You can't just say it shouldn't be allowed, you have to red herring it. That is pretty telling of where you stand, and it shouldn't be next to children without another adult in the room.
 
frm said:
So have I. That's the main reason for my stance.

But to reason with others about free speech, I have to bring up that if you exclude speech from A, it only goes into hiding on B. I would prefer to see it on A, where everyone else can see it so that each can make their conclusions about the world around them. If they don't know that B exists, I would argue there will always be a potential for a clear and present danger in their local community, where they live. Their counter-argument may be that "they'll just do it on B anyway", but if even 1 person is "dumb" (some don't mind showing their true colors with their real names and even jobs listed) and starts posting some nonsense to a more publically accessed network such as A, it helps authorities out a tremendous deal, if not the person seeing it so they know to stay away from that person; have thick skin, know who they are, and don't interact or avoid them, in real life.
Click to expand...
Arantor said:
Yes but according to the thoughts posted previously, we shouldn’t use the ignore button so we know who the racist people are, rather than driving them underground. Which to me sounds awfully like ensuring a lack of consequences for actions.
Click to expand...

Where did I say the ignore button doesn't exist? You're making up an argument that wasn't even made. Further, I even hinted at the idea of ignoring them, both online and offline, but first knowing who they are so that you can deal with them differently in real-life interactions, i.e., avoiding them for your best interest.
 
frm said:
Where did I say the ignore button doesn't exist? You're making up an argument that wasn't even made. Further, I even hinted at the idea of ignoring them, both online and offline, but first knowing who they are so that you can deal with them differently in real-life interactions, i.e., avoiding them for your best interest.
Click to expand...

Here in Brazil, this manual does exist.
With pressure from the population, most of whom are Christians, the left was not successful (they are all demons here).
I have no doubt about it.:unsure:
 
Taylor J said:
Not sure where they said

Should be allowed in children libraries, they even called the above "overt sexual content" which from what was said so far they are against.
Click to expand...
I made a specific argument about a specific book and they did not state that specific book should not be allowed, instead red herring it to other titles, therefore the only conclusion I can come up with is that they want that specific book in schools.

I, previously, drew a hard line. This person seems like they cannot.
frm said:
Yikes if you believe that should be in public schools for 13 year olds to access without parental consent.

I'd also toss out 50 Shades and other "graphic" (literature in these cases) romance/novels.

In middle school/high school? No thanks. College, no problem.
Click to expand...
Just post: "That book should not be allowed in schools" - If they can't do that as an absolute, and want to stand their vague ground, then... I'll have to judge it how I see it.
 
frm said:
I made a specific argument about a specific book and they did not state that specific book should not be allowed, instead red herring it to other titles, therefore the only conclusion I can come up with is that they want that specific book in schools.

I, previously, drew a hard line. This person seems like they cannot.

Just post: "That book should not be allowed in schools" - If they can't do that as an absolute, and want to stand their vague ground, then... I'll have to judge it how I see it.
Click to expand...
I see calling something as it is ala them saying it is "overt sexual content" as them agreeing. Just like I agree that book shouldn't be in children libraries, I do also agree with MrSiteGuy that if the hard line is overt sexual content then every single book with it needs to be removed, even The Bible (and every version of it).
 
Taylor J said:
If a book contains anything sexual, anything MrSiteGuy described, etc, then yes they should not be allowed.
Click to expand...
And then you get the multiple standards. Removing “the good book” or some denomination of it from libraries is “problematic”, because then you don’t get to indoctrinate the kids in the system that is inconsistently used to justify anything and everything.

It reminds me a lot of “freedom of speech, as long as it’s the right speech”.
 
Taylor J said:
I do also agree with MrSiteGuy that if the hard line is overt sexual content then every single book with it needs to be removed, even The Bible (and every version of it).
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
JamesBrown said:
Is anyone else missing Brogan?
Click to expand...
His absence was raised elsewhere out of genuine concern but all seems well. I rather suspect this is something of an experiment to see if the community broadly keeps it civil without heavy-handedness.

This conversation certainly feels like it bends the rules, gently, but it’s an important one to have in the context of what “should” be allowed to be discussed in general on forums, especially in light of increasing moderation requirements imposed by governments.

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 always thought the Founding Fathers wrote it very clearly: to ensure the population could always have a route to being able to safely and legitimately criticise the government of the day. Any other interpretation is, just that, an interpretation, at least to me.

It’s much like the Second Amendment to me: it was clearly written for a specific intent and context, and any meaning outside of that context is opportunist at best. (Specifically: in an era and a setting where there is no standing army, nor an organised police force, militias may be necessary to keep the peace and all that law and order stuff, and to ensure that a well-organised militia can use appropriate force - no point if only the bad guys can have weapons - there’s no restriction on it. It says nothing about empowering ordinary citizens to have potentially military-level weaponry.)
 
frm said:
Those sure are a lot of words for, "I want this in school libraries so that children can see it any time they wish without their paren't permission."
Click to expand...
You are being intellectually dishonest. I did not say I want this book in school libraries. I'm talking about general topics that are not sexually overt being censored. And in regular non-school libraries as well.

frm said:
Yikes on bikes. 🤮

You can't just say it shouldn't be allowed, you have to red herring it. That is pretty telling of where you stand, and it shouldn't be next to children without another adult in the room.
Click to expand...

And yet again, you're being intellectually dishonest. You pick an extreme example I don't think anyone wants, apply it to all the censoring going on, then you draw a false concussion lie and say I stand for that book being there.

I never said I want that in school libraries. What I don't want to see is books removed purely because they cover LGBTQ topics in high schools when they are not overly sexual. Such things are allowed for heterosexual topics. Other topics have removed that cover things such as critical race theory because racists/bigots don't approve of them.

PS - nice dodge about the content in the bible.
 
Last edited:
frm said:
I made a specific argument about a specific book and they did not state that specific book should not be allowed, instead red herring it to other titles, therefore the only conclusion I can come up with is that they want that specific book in schools.

I, previously, drew a hard line. This person seems like they cannot.

Just post: "That book should not be allowed in schools" - If they can't do that as an absolute, and want to stand their vague ground, then... I'll have to judge it how I see it.
Click to expand...
I made it pretty clear I didn't believe overt sexual content should be there, yet here you are doubling down on it. You're lying - again.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom