SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Afghanistan deadline

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Afghanistan deadline (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=248599)

"The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. "

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...se-information

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2766422)

"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."

I don't see a real problem with a tax paying business determining their policy.

The importance of the Internet as the "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," requires that the courts perpetually uphold the freedom of speech (ACLU). It’s unfortunate corporations are now determining what is permissible to be said and what is not. Many will initially be content with the great corporate algorithms and their decisions. Until the day their speech too will be simply turned off like those before them. But IMO but then it will be too late to do much about it, I guess. Without forums allowing full participation all that’s left are echo chambers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2766422)

I don't see a real problem with a tax paying business determining their policy.

Tax paying businesses are prohibited from discriminating against people for their race or background etc all the time. Why? Not because racial or ethnic hatred is against the law, you can hate anyone you want, but because discrimination on that basis violates peoples constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal treatment.

If private industry can, and should, be prohibited from violating those rights then what about the rest of our rights? Are they not valid enough for the Federal government to protect just as extensively?

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2766436)

If private industry can, and should, be prohibited from violating those rights then what about the rest of our rights? Are they not valid enough for the Federal government to protect just as extensively?

Please give examples of the rights (as apply to everyone without infringing on anyone) you fear are possibly in danger and why. Please include historical legal precedent. If you want and feel up to it. It's ok if you don't. :shucks:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2766429)

Desirable yes but I don't think Twitter is part of the Congress and the first amendment dictates that Congress shall pass no law. There is no first amendment violation so sue Twitter but don't whine about your free speech rights being violated. Not you specifically.

https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression

Quote:

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IGNORED

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted.

In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Throughout the 19th century, sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used to suppress the speech of abolitionists, religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers, and pacifists.

In Virginia prior to the Civil War, for example, anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

The early 20th century was not much better. In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control.

Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests. Violators were sentenced to prison.

Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions.

In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism.

In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally.

Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as "radical" by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was founded in 1920.

Quote:

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.

It’s appears though corporations can support popular ideas benefiting their lobby and candidates but suppress the speech and ideas of the minority. Rather than standing up and defending the minority and abolishing the echo chambers the popular Americans are content with the suppression. How did that saying go? ‘merica love it or leave it’ ya that brings back memories.

In which country does Twitter have it's main office (Origin)

It has something to do with what kind of law they have to obey.

Edit
It's in Silicon Valley
End edit

Then they must, as I see it, obey American law

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2766438)

There is no excuse to just roll over and allow it to happen. we still have a responsibility to defend even the most idioctic speech by hitting corporations where it counts, the bottom line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2766446)

There is no excuse to just roll over and allow it to happen. we still have a responsibility to defend even the most idioctic speech by hitting corporations where it counts, the bottom line.

Everyone has always had that option. Ever. :shucks:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlo (Post 2766447)

Everyone has always had that option. Ever. :shucks:

They were called Unions :yep:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2766448)

They were called Unions :yep:

Unions are still called unions. 'Purchasing power', however, is the real bottom line and involves the consumer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlo (Post 2766449)

Unions are still called unions. 'Purchasing power', however, is the real bottom line and involves the consumer.

Yep, that’s best way to fight the man. :arrgh!:

Fresh fighting in final anti-Taliban stronghold

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58443679

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2766438)

I would agree, except that social media has become the de facto soapbox on the town common. It's akin to the company contracted to mow the lawn on the town common on behalf of the city coming to the guy on the soapbox and chasing him away so he doesn't get run over as they mow the grass, smashing over his bullhorn and soapbox in the process. They're not kicking him out of the town common, they'll just mow him down along with the grass if he doesn't get out of the way. City government hasn't taken away his soapbox and bullhorn, but they've not told their contractor to not run over people along with the grass if they're in the way. He's still there, voicing his opinion from the side, but now no one who may have an interest in what he has to say can hear him.

The internet is the town common and social media is the soapbox and bullhorn because we're at the point that internet access providers and any kind of messaging/social media providers should be considered as common infrastructure since they enjoy protections of being a common carrier while also exercising the actions of wielding editorial control.

That's the difference. If they didn't shadowban, suspend, or permanent ban people who voice unpopular (even ridiculous) viewpoints, I'd have a different consideration for them. But when they ban unpopular but legal viewpoints while simultaneously allowing unlawful viewpoints, they've lost any credibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna (Post 2766556)

Fresh fighting in final anti-Taliban stronghold

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58443679

Matter of time i'm afraid. We've abandoned them. No Special Forces riding mountain ponies into battle, or calling in B52 strikes, and we've left their enemies with enormous stockpiles of arms and munitions. Matter of time.