The Next President is...

[Guardian]

You might have to go back a few pages since Sua Sponte vomited all over the thread.

Been racking my brain for a bit trying to classify Sua Sponte’s posts.

You nailed it. I give it a 10.

[ViperMan]

3 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Agree with your stance except this. Hitler convinced the German people that the Jews were causing all their problems, and than convinced them to slaughter them. They do not always stop themselves and often times get out of control and can result in serious consequences. But it's the German people who bear the responsibility for succumbing to such a lie, they could have stopped it the second the roundups started happening. From my understanding from friends who have been there they are still ashamed of it to this day.

Let me ask you this: why do you think was Hitler able to convince the Germans that the Jews would be an effective scapegoat? Was he just that powerful an orator? Or were there perhaps some other conditions within Germany that enabled messaging like that to take hold? Would a Hitler have been able to exist without the economic policies instituted after WWI? Using Hitler as an example of why we need to limit free speech is a pretty one-dimensional reading of how the Nazis came to power.

4 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

And they will forever be remembered as the country that let it happen. Unrecoverable. Just like how slavery will always be a thorn in this countries back. People will be talking about it 1000 years from now when all of us are dead.

I think we collectively over-estimate how permanent recent history is vs. ancient history. Does anyone remember how prevalent European slaves were in Africa re: Barbary pirates? Maybe some do. I don't think that's how Northern Africa is really thought of today, however. A fair reading of American history would also be how we fought a war ending slavery whose casualties outstripped the combined totals of WWI and WWII. Not many other countries have gone to that length to end such an institution.

[Prozac]

22 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's in this very thread. Two examples of legislators threatening government control in the absence of desired actions, which in this case, the desired action is the suppression of speech.

 

The associated supreme court case that lays out the concept is also cited.

Ah. So, there are a couple of individual lawmakers openly considering whether there needs to be more government control over what propagates on social media. Yet you argued “the government is the one trying to block it”. Those are two different things. There is no US vs Twitter lawsuit citing misinformation that I am aware of. Nor is there any legislation circulating in congress that addresses the issue. So, despite what Sen Feinstein may have said, no, the federal government is not suppressing speech or threatening social media platforms. It is putting pressure on them to do more to combat misinformation, but there is no legal action or threat of penalty to compel them to do so. You say I made a statement that was factually incorrect but the truth is that it’s the other way around. 

[hockeydork]

1 minute ago, ViperMan said:

Let me ask you this: why do you think was Hitler able to convince the Germans that the Jews would be an effective scapegoat? Was he just that powerful an orator? Or were there perhaps some other conditions within Germany that enabled messaging like that to take hold? Would a Hitler have been able to exist without the economic policies instituted after WWI? Using Hitler as an example of why we need to limit free speech is a pretty one-dimensional reading of how the Nazis came to power.

I think we collectively over-estimate how permanent recent history is vs. ancient history. Does anyone remember how prevalent European slaves were in Africa re: Barbary pirates? Maybe some do. I don't think that's how Northern Africa is really thought of today, however. A fair reading of American history would also be how we fought a war ending slavery whose casualties outstripped the combined totals of WWI and WWII. Not many other countries have gone to that length to end such an institution.

Reread my post, it isn't about using Hitler to limit free speech, quite the opposite. I said it's the German people who bear the responsibility for believing the lie, not that the lie itself was produced. I disagreed with your idea that false messages stop themselves. If they did we wouldn't have flat earthers. We have an ISS and pictures to prove it and such an idea that the planet is flat is abundantly ludicrous, yet it persists.

 

Viperman, if you go follow the next rainbow you see in the sky there will be a pot of gold at the end of it. It's your job to deduce that such a statement is idiotic, not the government. 

[Prozac]

20 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

The internet is the new public square. 
 

comparing Sunday talk shows to the internet is apples to oranges. Government is limiting the flow of free information they just happen to be doing it online instead of in the physical world. 
 

the better example is government taking people off the street corner who are holding signs or yelling information government doesn’t approve of. same difference just doing it online 
 

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

[hockeydork]

9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

You guys aren't on the same page. The INTERNET is the new public square, I can make a forum and propagate my ideas with out restriction=screaming from public square. That is an American right.

 

Facebook, Twitter, etc ARE private property. They have the right to decide who uses their forum and how, just like MSNBC has a right to decide who they want to have on a talk show/who they don't. 

 

Adding this: I don't think the government should be telling them what acceptable content is tho. That is overreach, that is at the discretion of the owners. Just like the moderators have the discretion to ban people on this forum. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by hockeydork

[ViperMan]

4 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Reread my post, it isn't about using Hitler to limit free speech, quite the opposite. I said it's the German people who bear the responsibility for believing the lie, not that the lie itself was produced. I disagreed with your idea that false messages stop themselves. If they did we wouldn't have flat earthers. We have an ISS and pictures to prove it and such an idea that the planet is flat is abundantly ludicrous, yet it persists.

Viperman, if you go follow the next rainbow you see in the sky there will be a pot of gold at the end of it. It's your job to deduce that such a statement is idiotic, not the government. 

I agree - it's my responsibility.

I understand your point. There will always be dumb people. Is your view, though, that if we limit false information everyone is going to have the same set of thoughts and internal representation of how the world is? This is a more complex issue than just saying we need to limit the propagation of bad information. Viewing it as that simple is seductive because it seems like a silver bullet that will just solve the problem in one fell-swoop. I'm saying that the German people didn't just simply "believe a lie" - it was far more complex than that.

If the government intervened and outlawed the view that the Earth is flat, would that action create more or less flat Earthers? Since obviously it's not flat. What about no gold at the end of a rainbow? More or less leprechauns?

[ViperMan]

11 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

With your construction of the issue, you're right - just because something is online does not make it a public space. No one is making such a simple argument, though. You're holding a strawman.

When the government compels a private company to act on their behalf, that changes things, and it's no longer an issue of it simply being online. When Facebook begins censoring messages on behalf of the government, they have now become a de facto arm of the government. *If* the messages being censored would *otherwise* be constitutionally protected, *that* is now unconstitutional. See the distinction?

[ViperMan]

14 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Facebook, Twitter, etc ARE private property. They have the right to decide who uses their forum and how, just like MSNBC has a right to decide who they want to have on a talk show/who they don't.

So long as Facebook and Twitter are acting independent of government imposition, you are correct. Once they begin acting on behalf of the government, however, that makes things different.

[hockeydork]

3 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I agree - it's my responsibility.

I understand your point. There will always be dumb people. Is your view, though, that if we limit false information everyone is going to have the same set of thoughts and internal representation of how the world is? This is a more complex issue than just saying we need to limit the propagation of bad information. Viewing it as that simple is seductive because it seems like a silver bullet that will just solve the problem in one fell-swoop. I'm saying that the German people didn't just simply "believe a lie" - it was far more complex than that.

If the government intervened and outlawed the view that the Earth is flat, would that action create more or less flat Earthers? Since obviously it's not flat. What about no gold at the end of a rainbow? More or less leprechauns?

My view is it is a systemic problem in American culture that won't be corrected by government intervention. Ban flat earthers = more flat earthers, same thing with the leprechauns. Do I want to even start with the moon landing idiots?

At the basic level, we only know "truth" as "truth" by verifying through the masses. Line 100 people up and ask them to pick out the color of the sky in a crayon box. 98 will grab the same color crayon, we call it blue. 2 color blind people will grab the brown crayon. To them the sky is brown.  The sky is "blue" only because the majority believe it is blue. The colorblind people have to acknowledge that, by logical deduction, they must be the anomaly. Even if you believed for a hot minute that the earth was flat, or that we didn't go to the moon, if 98 people tell you you are wrong and you continue thumping your drum, you're just being an arrogant asshole. 

[Prozac]

2 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

With your construction of the issue, you're right - just because something is online does not make it a public space. No one is making such a simple argument, though. You're holding a strawman.

When the government compels a private company to act on their behalf, that changes things, and it's no longer an issue of it simply being online. When Facebook begins censoring messages on behalf of the government, they have now become a de facto arm of the government. *If* the messages being censored would *otherwise* be constitutionally protected, *that* is now unconstitutional. See the distinction?

Ok. I’ll ask you the same question I asked ratner: how exactly is the federal government compelling social media platforms to do its bidding? Can you point to any legislation or lawsuit that would compel Facebook to suppress anyone’s opinion? 

[ViperMan]

9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Ok. I’ll ask you the same question I asked ratner: how exactly is the federal government compelling social media platforms to do its bidding? Can you point to any legislation or lawsuit that would compel Facebook to suppress anyone’s opinion? 

https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/

Also, see the removal of the ability to post about the Hunter Biden laptop from Twitter and Facebook. Is legislation necessary in your view? Or are the threats levied against these companies (previously cited) enough? What about the fact that it is actually happening? Like, right now.

Again, there is established legal precedent that has found that the government threat of legal action against a book publisher constituted a violation of the first amendment.

Now, back to my question. Do you understand the distinction being made?

[Prozac]

30 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/

Also, see the removal of the ability to post about the Hunter Biden laptop from Twitter and Facebook. Is legislation necessary in your view? Or are the threats levied against these companies (previously cited) enough? What about the fact that it is actually happening? Like, right now.

Again, there is established legal precedent that has found that the government threat of legal action against a book publisher constituted a violation of the first amendment.

Now, back to my question. Do you understand the distinction being made?

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

[kaputt]

12 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove violative posts," Psaki said. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-facebook-takes-too-long-when-removing-misinformation-2021-7?op=1

How much more clear could it get? The administration is literally demanding that Facebook act as their censorship arm. 

[tac airlifter]

22 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

Refresh my memory— why was Trump impeached by the house in 2019?  Because I thought democrat arguments were that illegal WH influence was through implied rather than explicit statements.  

A fundamental problem in our country is political tribes that justify any behavior from “our” guy while condemning all behavior from “their” guy.  
 

This is why Hunter Biden isn’t in jail on felony gun charges.  And why the obvious C19 lab leak was hidden, etc. The hypocrisy makes compromise impossible.  Which is the goal; how do you guys think this ends?

Edited July 17, 2021 by tac airlifter

[Prozac]

2 minutes ago, kaputt said:

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove violative posts," Psaki said. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-facebook-takes-too-long-when-removing-misinformation-2021-7?op=1

How much more clear could it get? The administration is literally demanding that Facebook act as their censorship arm. 

Holy shit guys, some of you really do need to go back to high school. So the WH Press Secretary says “Facebook needs to move quickly” and all of a sudden that’s the law? Do you really believe we rule by decree in this country? Nothing Psaki said compels FB or anyone else to do jack shit. 

[Prozac]

1 minute ago, tac airlifter said:

Refresh my memory— why was Trump impeached by the house in 2019?  Because I thought democrat arguments were that illegal WH influence was through implied rather than explicit statements.  

A fundamental problem in our country is political tribes that justify any behavior from “our” guy while condemning all behavior from “their” guy.  
 

This is why Hunter Biden isn’t in jail on felony gun charges.  The hypocrisy makes compromise impossible.  Which is the goal; how do you guys think this ends?

This is a more coherent argument. Look guys, if the argument is that Feinstein’s and Psaki’s statements could be construed as problematic and raise some questions about potential government overreach that should be answered” I’d say I AGREE! But that’s not the argument being pushed here. The argument is “the government is censoring social media”, to which I say: No, it is not. It’s another example of the right taking a legitimate issue and attempting to twist it into an existential threat that will end society as we know it in order to keep the base energized. 

[ViperMan]

45 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Nope. What legal action is being threatened. The White House is flagging posts that it considers to be disinformation and bringing that up with Facebook. It is still facebook’s decision as to what they will do with those posts. Is the government pushing its agenda? Absolutely, as they have done with various media outlets forever. Are they COMPELLING social media companies to censor their content through legislation or legal action? Nope. 

I guess I'll just ask it simply, apart from what we think is actually happening in society right now: do you think that when the government pressures a company to do what it otherwise cannot, there is a potential violation of the constitution?

i.e. do you think Norwood v. Harrison was correct?

"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

May not induce, encourage, or promote...what do you think that means? Must there be legislation in your view for there to be a problem? Because if so, that's not in accordance with established legal precedent in our country. That is to say, I'm fine if it's your opinion that you think that case was decided incorrectly, or that the concept itself is wrong. That said, from a legal standpoint, from a constitutional standpoint, there needn't be any legal action or legislation in the works to constitute a violation of the constitution. Which is why the argument you're making is a straw man. It's not necessary for there to be legal action.

24 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Holy shit guys, some of you really do need to go back to high school. So the WH Press Secretary says “Facebook needs to move quickly” and all of a sudden that’s the law? Do you really believe we rule by decree in this country? Nothing Psaki said compels FB or anyone else to do jack shit. 

You're cherry-picking a single example. What about the others? i.e. members of Congress calling for legal action, etc? Nadler, etc? i.e. encouraging and promoting...

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I guess I'll just ask it simply, apart from what we think is actually happening in society right now: do you think that when the government pressures a company to do what it otherwise cannot, there is a potential violation of the constitution?

i.e. do you think Norwood v. Harrison was correct?

"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

May not induce, encourage, or promote...what do you think that means? Must there be legislation in your view for there to be a problem? Because if so, that's not in accordance with established legal precedent in our country. That is to say, I'm fine if it's your opinion that you think that case was decided incorrectly, or that the concept itself is wrong. That said, from a legal standpoint, from a constitutional standpoint, there needn't be any legal action or legislation in the works to constitute a violation of the constitution. Which is why the argument you're making is a straw man. It's not necessary for there to be legal action.

You're cherry-picking a single example. What about the others? i.e. members of Congress calling for legal action, etc? Nadler, etc? i.e. encouraging and promoting...

Exactly. Prozac is not reading the case law, just citing his opinion as fact, while treating our citation of the case law as personal opinion.

 

The question is whether the quotes by Nadler, Feinstein, and Psaki raise to the level of implied compulsion that Sullivan and Norwood prohibit. I believe dragging a CEO to D.C., berating them for hours, then warning them that there will be legislation to strip them of control over their property if they don't comply is pretty damn concerning.

 

But it was also ok when the Obama administration went after journalists, so I'm not at all surprised that a more nuanced situation is not a concern to whatever the progressives stand for these days. I just can't find an underlying ideology that is consistent with the various party positions beyond "power is bad, success is stolen."

[Prozac]

16 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I guess I'll just ask it simply, apart from what we think is actually happening in society right now: do you think that when the government pressures a company to do what it otherwise cannot, there is a potential violation of the constitution?

i.e. do you think Norwood v. Harrison was correct?

"It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

May not induce, encourage, or promote...what do you think that means? Must there be legislation in your view for there to be a problem? Because if so, that's not in accordance with established legal precedent in our country. That is to say, I'm fine if it's your opinion that you think that case was decided incorrectly, or that the concept itself is wrong. That said, from a legal standpoint, from a constitutional standpoint, there needn't be any legal action or legislation in the works to constitute a violation of the constitution. Which is why the argument you're making is a straw man. It's not necessary for there to be legal action.

You're cherry-picking a single example. What about the others? i.e. members of Congress calling for legal action, etc? Nadler, etc? i.e. encouraging and promoting...

I’m failing to understand how that case applies to this argument. From some light surface research, it appears that case has to do with the 14th amendment and that the court explicitly said that the state of Mississippi did not violate the first amendment. As far as individual lawmakers voicing their opinions, I agree that they can be problematic, but I think it’s a stretch that a single statement by a single lawmaker represents the view of the entire federal government. Example: Marjorie Taylor Green makes statements all the time that are pretty far from mainstream. Most don’t attribute here views to the whole of government. I will ask you this: We’re you as concerned about government overreach wrt the first Amendment when the then POTUS very publicly and explicitly stated that he wanted to change the libel laws to make it easier to sue/silence journalists who were critical of him? I really don’t remember too many on the right who waved the flag at this very overt threat that emanated from the very highest level of the government. 

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

Agree to disagree “dude”

 

[ViperMan]

17 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’m failing to understand how that case applies to this argument. From some light surface research, it appears that case has to do with the 14th amendment and that the court explicitly said that the state of Mississippi did not violate the first amendment. As far as individual lawmakers voicing their opinions, I agree that they can be problematic, but I think it’s a stretch that a single statement by a single lawmaker represents the view of the entire federal government. Example: Marjorie Taylor Green makes statements all the time that are pretty far from mainstream. Most don’t attribute here views to the whole of government. I will ask you this: We’re you as concerned about government overreach wrt the first Amendment when the then POTUS very publicly and explicitly stated that he wanted to change the libel laws to make it easier to sue/silence journalists who were critical of him? I really don’t remember too many on the right who waved the flag at this very overt threat that emanated from the very highest level of the government. 

Well, I asked specifically "apart from what we think is happening in society right now" to help us get somewhere with this argument - that you stuck to how it applies here feels like a further attempt to side-step the actual issue at hand.

I don't think there's anything wrong with lawmakers voicing their opinions! Jeez, that's a fundamental aspect of our system. But your misrepresentation of the issue is a dodge - the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do. That is happening when congressional committeemen (who can call on the likes of Jack Dorsey and Mark Z to testify at their behest) and presidential administrations publicly state their desire that the company had best comply with their dictates, lest they suddenly find themselves being legislated.

I wasn't really paying attention to that, honestly. But to answer your question, I think libel laws are probably ok as they are. But I frankly know nothing about them. BTW, I'm no Trump apologist.

Edited July 17, 2021 by ViperMan
wording

[Prozac]

7 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Agree to disagree “dude”

 

Nope. If you think Facebook is public space, you are wrong. Period. 

[Prozac]

7 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Well, I asked specifically "apart from what we think is happening in society right now" to help us get somewhere with this argument - that you stuck to how it applies here feels like a further attempt to side-step the actual issue at hand.

I don't think there's anything wrong with lawmakers voicing their opinions! Jeez, that's a fundamental aspect of our system. But your misrepresentation of the issue is a dodge - the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do. That is happening when congressional committeemen (who can call on the likes of Jack Dorsey and Mark Z to testify at their behest) and presidential administrations publicly state their desire that the company had best comply with their dictates, lest they suddenly find themselves being legislated.

I wasn't really paying attention to that, honestly. But to answer your question, I think libel laws are probably ok as they are. But I frankly know nothing about them. BTW, I'm no Trump apologist.

“the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do.”

This is where I get confused with your argument. Are you stating that it would be “otherwise illegal” for Facebook to block or suppress (or promote for that matter) content on its platform? 
 

My argument from another angle: Much of the speech we are talking about could be considered to be in a very grey area in the first place. In the classic example if I yell fire in a theater when none exists, as the first amendment gives me the right to do, I may still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter after deaths occur in the ensuing stampede. The same argument holds true if someone states that a vaccine causes infertility (when it does not), thus causing large numbers of people to forgo vaccination leading to preventable deaths. If the theater owner knowingly invited the fire yeller in, he will likely be held complicit in the deaths that occurred. The government views Facebook in the same light at the moment. 

[Lord Ratner]

4 minutes ago, Prozac said:

“the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do.”

This is where I get confused with your argument. Are you stating that it would be “otherwise illegal” for Facebook to block or suppress (or promote for that matter) content on its platform? 
 

My argument from another angle: Much of the speech we are talking about could be considered to be in a very grey area in the first place. In the classic example if I yell fire in a theater when none exists, as the first amendment gives me the right to do, I may still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter after deaths occur in the ensuing stampede. The same argument holds true if someone states that a vaccine causes infertility (when it does not), thus causing large numbers of people to forgo vaccination leading to preventable deaths. If the theater owner knowingly invited the fire yeller in, he will likely be held complicit in the deaths that occurred. The government views Facebook in the same light at the moment. 

No, it would otherwise be illegal for the government to block it. Have you read either of the actual decisions? Much easier that way.