both parties are bad at violating free speech - but republicans are worse

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 59
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4

here is my rant....
democrats will censor speech when it's dangerous or it's misinformation. republicans censor when it's simply a message that disagrees with them. examples are book bans from republicans, and social media censoring from democrats. the reason republicans are worse, is because they want to attack substance and dont have even a plasible (not that it's excused) excuse that the speech is dangerous or inaccurate. at least, republicans have historically not been all about new ideas. from the other side, the liberals' hippie ancestors are not amused, because those hippies promoted free speech, whereas modern liberals dont as much as they should. liberals also do things like ban trump from platforms.... it's understandable to block dangerous speech, but someone in trump's position should have least have a platform, so it'd be better to pick what things to block from him instead of a blanket ban. the reason liberals are doing the censoring moreso these days, is because they hold power politically these days in the culture... so it's an inversion of power, in the past they were the ones being censored. 

if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech. my focus isn't debating those that think free speech is bad... but the thing is, everyone wants to talk out their mouth that it's good, and then a sizeable number will find ways to excuse censorship when it comes from their party. 

i'm just calling spades, spades, with this post. how could you disagree? 
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
'Bad at'

'Bworse'

Lol. Worse at being bad at censoring? Or?

Worse at censoring?


????
Topic's author
#3
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@RationalMadman
the context of my post makes my meaning clear. you're too smart not to know that, so i'm not sure your motive. im thinking either just being funny or difficult. 
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
democrats will censor speech when it's dangerous or it's misinformation. 
You do realize the main reason Biden is in office is because of the censorship of the Hunter laptop, right?
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,381
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
As I keep telling you, Biden is in office because good ole Americans preferred the old guy to the orange guy.

And HUNTERLAPTOP is a media inspired  STRAWMANFALLACYCONCEPT.

Have a nice day y'all.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
preferred the old guy
Yeah, the old guy that didn't have a laptop scandal. Lots of Americans preferred that guy to the one now.
#7
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
You do realize the main reason Biden is in office is because of the censorship of the Hunter laptop, right?
Laptop schmaptop. 

The main reason was abuse of the power of his office and his poor handling (and comprehension) of covid. 
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The media’s censorship of Biden’s scandals had the strongest impact on this year’s election. According to our survey, more than one-third of Biden voters (35.4%) were unaware of the serious allegations brought against the Democratic nominee by Tara Reade, a former staffer who said Biden sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.

If they had known about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations, 8.9% told us they would have changed their vote — either switching to Trump or a 3rd party candidate, not voting for any presidential candidate, or not voting at all. By itself, this would have flipped all six of the swing states won by Biden (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), giving the President a win with 311 electoral college votes.

Even more Biden voters (45.1%) said they were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter (a story infamously censored by Twitter and Facebook, as well as ignored by the liberal media). According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes.


#9
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,119
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
“Misinformation” is merely “fake news” rebranded for people who hate Trump.
#10
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@n8nrgim
Social media (not government) bans POTUS.

Politicians use government to ban books.

Only one of the scenarios provided runs against the 1st A.
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
You do realize the main reason Biden is in office is because of the censorship of the Hunter laptop, right?
Jared Kushner takes $2 billion dollars from the Saudi dictator last week out in the open and GP has nothing to say but Giuliani gets a laptop from the Russians that suggests that Biden's son offered to introduce his father to some Ukrainian officials after his father was out of office and GP wants a congressional investigation.   If every accusation leveled at Hunter proved true (unlikely or why would Russia need to handle his laptop first?) it would still not amount to 1/1000th of the bribes the Trump family openly admits to taking just last week.  Double standard much?

#12
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Your report comes from MRC. Their about page screams bias. It makes me question the impartiality of their survey.

Learn a little more about who we are.
The MRC’s commitment to neutralizing leftist bias in the news media and popular culture has had a critical impact on the way Americans view the liberal media.
The MRC is able to effectively educate the public about left-wing media bias by integrating cutting-edge news monitoring capabilities with a sophisticated marketing operation. 

#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
“Misinformation” is merely “fake news” rebranded for people who hate Trump.
seems like it.
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Jared Kushner takes $2 billion dollars from the Saudi dictator last week
The same one who won't return Biden's calls asking for oil? The same one making lampoons mocking him on Saudi State TV?

World respected lol.
#15
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,916
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@cristo71
@Greyparrot

“Misinformation” is merely “fake news” rebranded for people who hate Trump.
seems like it.
When you have a vocabulary of an 8-year-old ^
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
When you have a vocabulary of an 8-year-old 

#17
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,119
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Reece101
No, Trump has all the best words.
#18
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,916
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
When you have a vocabulary of an 8-year-old 

That might make sense to seniors. 
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
No, Trump has all the best words.
Fact check: Pants on Fire.
#20
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,229
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgim

Remember that humans are divided into Worm Man and Intelligent Man. Fortunately, you are Intelligent Man. You can guess what side Trump voters fall.
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
#22
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,119
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Build Words Better
#23
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,119
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Build Back Biden Better
#24
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
Jared Kushner takes $2 billion dollars from the Saudi dictator last week out in the open and GP has nothing to say but Giuliani gets a laptop from the Russians that suggests that Biden's son offered to introduce his father to some Ukrainian officials after his father was out of office and GP wants a congressional investigation.   If every accusation leveled at Hunter proved true (unlikely or why would Russia need to handle his laptop first?) it would still not amount to 1/1000th of the bribes the Trump family openly admits to taking just last week.  Double standard much?
The point isn’t that Trump/his family aren’t corrupt, it’s that the public was allowed to be informed about allegations against Trump/the Trump family, whereas allegations against Biden and his family faced unprecedented censorship. Unfortunately it seems like the temptation to easily get rich using your office is too much for almost all politicians to pass up 
Topic's author
#25
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
which is why i said.. 

"if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech. "
#26
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@n8nrgim
"Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".

Government forcing individuals to broadcast the views of other would be an abridgment of their own speech, would it not? 

I think it is a common mistake to think we have the right to say whatever we want wherever we want and the government should be involved in protecting this conception of 'free speech' . I think it is also a false equivalence to compare individuals disallowing certain expression in their domains with individuals using government to restrict expression. Only the latter is potentially an infringement of free speech. 
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,224
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that "Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule. Left Wing outlets can be subsidized with the general funds."

#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,332
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech
Freedom of speech protects us from the government, it’s not something the government acts to protect us from. Government protection in this context simply means to not violate our rights.

So like S1 said, the idea of government getting involved in any way is not protection, it’s a violation. You cannot protect one’s right to use a platform without violating the right of those who wish for their platform to not be used.
#29
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
allegations against Biden and his family faced unprecedented censorship.
I see no evidence that this is true.  When social media limited the NY Post reporting of Oct 14th, 2020 that was the right call for a host of reasons:

  • The source for that reporting was Giuliani who was then and now a chief operative for Trump and who had been under investigation since 2019 for manufacturing false evidence in the Ukraine against his client's political opponents.
    • Giuliani was well known to have been shopping the story for weeks and had been turned away from FOX News and Wall St. Journal as an unverifiable story, mostly because it was tainted by Giuliani's possession of the drives and the ridiculous number of times the data had been copied, obscuring the point of origin.  No reliable reporter is just going to take some political opponents' word for it, especially when the feds are already investigating that hack for prior violations of manufacturing fake news vs. opponents.
    • According to a NYTimes interview , Giuliani specifically requested that the material NOT be vetted before publication.
  • The NY Post reporter who wrote the story refused to allow his name in the byline of that story because the facts lacked any independent verfication.
    • Neither of the reporters who's names did appear in the byline did any of the investigation or writing of the piece.  In fact, one of the reporters was not aware that she an author of the piece until after the story went to print and other newspapers started calling her.  Now THAT is fucked fake journalism on an unprecedented scale
  • The story's credibility hinged on the anonymity of the computer repair shop owner but as soon as the  NY Post story broke, legitimate reporters were able to use photo metadata to trace the pictures of the laptop back to Mac Issac (raising questions about why the Post neglected to perform this simple investigation) and leading to an entirely discrediting and contradictory interview with Mac Issac including the fact that Mac Issac refuses to answer any questions regarding whether he and Giuliani were associates before the laptop (and so it is reasonable to assume that they were known associates).
    • We should note that Mac Issac had no legal right to view or download the information he claims to have viewed and downloaded but no charges have been filed against him, suggesting that authorities don't believe he did view or download the information as claimed.
    • In hindsight, it seems worth noting that Mac Issac was apparently in a position to retire from computer repair just weeks after the Post report and has not seem to have required any employment since.
    • We might also note that Mac Issac has reported in recent weeks that the information distributed by GOP as coming from Biden's laptop is NOT what he claims to have viewed and copied- but Giuliani is not disavowing or correcting GOP disinformation, which strongly suggests that Giuliani is not interested in the integrity of his original claim.
  • Considering that the Mueller investigation found that Julian Assange had been in communication with Russian Intelligence and Roger Stone in the hours before Wikileaks released the Podesta emails 3 weeks before the 2016 election and that three weeks before the 2020 election, Trump operatives were again pushing data that showed evidence of Russian tampering, any good journalist would be wary of a pattern of October surprise disinformation emanating from the axis of Trump/Putin.
    • As 51 Senior intelligence officials, including active agents within the Trump administration publicly warned: "the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter...has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
Social media policies enacted in the wake of the 2016 Trump/Putin disinformation campaigns appropriately tried to limit the appearance of credibility lent by the prioritization and distribution of the entirely unverified claims regarding the laptop but were generally unsuccessful.  For example, between October 14 and 23, the original New York Post story received over 54 million Facebook views, in spite of that article's manifest and persistent lack of credibility.

#30
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
I’m sure Trump tax returns were obtained in a totally legal and legitimate manner as well. It doesn’t matter in my view, the counter to misinformation is good information not censorship.