• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews?

Is hate speech against Jews free speech? Should this be allowed on Twitter?

  • Total voters
    34
It isn't the free speech that will be the problem for Twitter.. It's the consequences of the free speech.. The families of the victims of the Nazis, Terrorists, etc will go after Twitter..
 
reflechissez said:
How so?
Click to expand...
What do you think Congress is doing when it sends intimidating letters and hauls social media executives into hearings to demand they shut people up? The government doesn’t have to intervene directly anymore to stop free speech. It can and does it through corporations.
 
Napoleon said:
The founders didn’t envision a world in which corporations amass so much power that they have a chilling effect on constitutional rights, but that’s the world we live in. I also don’t like the idea of creating a loophole in which the government can do that via a corporation - which is essentially what has happened.
Click to expand...
That becomes more apparent as time moves on………
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Pedophiles... Neo Nazis... Domestic terrorists threatening politicians... All of that and more will be a headache for Musk..

Musk is rich, so he can afford the army of lawyers he will need to fend off the lawsuits...

Honestly I think Musk is going to make a bunch of comments about opening it up, and free speech and all of that... But when the shit starts hitting the fan, he'll back away... And tell the people actually running Twitter to toughen up the TOS, AND enforce it...
Click to expand...
Sex with minors is illegal, as is a great deal of discussion of sex with minors. Threats against politicians are illegal.

Neo-Nazis? I would welcome them posting. The best way to show them for what they are is to let them speak, and they can be rebutted. Sunlight is the best disinfected. Drive them underground, and they fester.

And, the complaint about censorship is not about threats, harassment, and obscenity. The complaints against Twitter are that it censors news articles as disinformation which were not and are not disinformation, and and censors expressions of opinion and discussion on various topics, like Covid 19, about masks, and even censors political opinions. Memes were censored. Shit, the Babylon Bee was banned for JOKING about Rachel Levine.

We aren't talking about Nazis pointing at people and yelling "Jew! Jew! Jew!" or calling for genocide. We aren't talking about threats of bodily harm and ongoing harassment. We're talking about "Masks don't work and here is why...." -- we're talking about "Hey, there's a laptop here with emails that seem to implicate Joe Biden in a money making scheme involving China and Ukraine..." - we're talking about "Hey, I think we should look into Ivermectin a bit more, and I think the media is silencing legitimate debate about it...."
 

Free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews?​



I reject the premise that all speech needs to be allowed on Twitter. It certainly does not! Twitter has the right to determine whatever speech they want to be acceptable. They don't owe any access to anyone, anymore than Debate Politics owes access to anyone. All private social media sites reserve the right to exclude content, or exclude participation from unwanted persons. Why would anyone expect otherwise?
 
Whenever the left loses a battle, they engage in speculation, conjecture, and fear porn to create a panic.
Spunkylama said:
Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
Click to expand...

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Pedophiles... Neo Nazis... Domestic terrorists threatening politicians...
Click to expand...

They would approve Chinese gov't level control as long as they controlled it.
 
Btw weeks ago Musk said he was going to stop advertising on Twitter if he bought it.. He was going to make it a pay service..

Any new news on that? If he opens it up to all these hate groups, and then asks regular people to pay to get on Twitter? I can't imagine a worse business plan..
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Btw weeks ago Musk said he was going to stop advertising on Twitter if he bought it.. He was going to make it a pay service..

Any new news on that? If he opens it up to all these hate groups, and then asks regular people to pay to get on Twitter? I can't imagine a worse business plan..
Click to expand...
Musk doesn’t go into business to make money. None of his ventures turn a profit. He does it for personal entertainment.
 
Napoleon said:
What do you think Congress is doing when it sends intimidating letters and hauls social media executives into hearings to demand they shut people up?
Click to expand...
The CIA and the NSA have their tentacles in social media. They don't control everything they do, but they have almost carte blanche to use the platforms to push narratives and manufacture consent.
 
Schism said:
Whenever the left loses a battle, they engage in speculation, conjecture, and fear porn to create a panic.




They would approve Chinese gov't level control as long as they controlled it.
Click to expand...
Nope.. I'm not on Twitter
. I could give a shit.. I'm just wondering when families and lawyers start blaming Twitter for violence what Musk will do?

Btw Tesla has the close ties with the Chinese..
 
Spunkylama said:
Not in Canada. They have hate speech laws that I personally think America should adopt.
Click to expand...

Free speech doesn’t mean all speech in the US either.
 
Mycroft said:
All speech is free speech...even speech one person/group or another doesn't like.

Where I draw the line is with action...and speech is not action.

Look, if some nutjob is standing on the street corner spouting what you call hate speech, do you think that person should be forced to stop? Or, does that person have the right to say whatever they want? I say it's the latter. If I don't want to hear what that person is saying, I'll move on or ignore the nutjob.

Now...if that nutjob starts physically attacking people they don't like...THEN something needs to be done.
Click to expand...
I actually find this very interesting, because we are seeing this play out with the January 6th arguments that Trump is responsible for inciting.

As a hypothetical, a cult leader (no I am not saying Trump is a cult leader before you try and argue that) who is not "getting his hands dirty" calls on his followers to go and kill minorities, and they do it, would that cult leader be responsible? Technically, using this argument,, all he did was say that his followers should so it. He did not break any laws, or personally kill anybody.

At what point does "free speech" become criminal? Is it really about not wanting to hear it and move on, or is it about not wanting to hear it, but being unstable in the head that that speech reaches that person in a way that makes him or her act on the things that he or she heard, whether they wanted to hear it or not? There are exceptions to every rule (not yelling fire when there is no fire, killing someone in self defense), where would the line be?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Btw weeks ago Musk said he was going to stop advertising on Twitter if he bought it.. He was going to make it a pay service..

Any new news on that? If he opens it up to all these hate groups, and then asks regular people to pay to get on Twitter? I can't imagine a worse business plan..
Click to expand...
Twitter is already open to hate groups.
 
Schism said:
Whenever the left loses a battle, they engage in speculation, conjecture, and fear porn to create a panic.




They would approve Chinese gov't level control as long as they controlled it.
Click to expand...
What battle has the left lost here?
 
1650993251323.png
 
Wait! Tesla has ties to the Chinese then why aren't the liberals happy about this?! Republicans always yelling about how much the left loves and supports China!
 
Napoleon said:
What do you think Congress is doing when it sends intimidating letters and hauls social media executives into hearings to demand they shut people up? The government doesn’t have to intervene directly anymore to stop free speech. It can and does it through corporations.
Click to expand...
What free speech has been "stopped?" Consider, that if you know about it, it hasn't been "stopped."
 
MrNiceGuy said:
The CIA and the NSA have their tentacles in social media. They don't control everything they do, but they have almost carte blanche to use the platforms to push narratives and manufacture consent.
Click to expand...
Who told you this?
 
Napoleon said:
It was a response to your assertion that free speech only applies to the government. My response was that the bill of rights shouldn’t be interpreted that way in the 21st century with corporations wielding power to silence and the government acting through those corporations.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree, imo the bright line for govt is a good thing. But I do agree that the government and corporations are often too close for comfort.
 
donhughesmusic said:
I actually find this very interesting, because we are seeing this play out with the January 6th arguments that Trump is responsible for inciting.

As a hypothetical, a cult leader (no I am not saying Trump is a cult leader before you try and argue that) who is not "getting his hands dirty" calls on his followers to go and kill minorities, and they do it, would that cult leader be responsible? Technically, using this argument,, all he did was say that his followers should so it. He did not break any laws, or personally kill anybody.

At what point does "free speech" become criminal? Is it really about not wanting to hear it and move on, or is it about not wanting to hear it, but being unstable in the head that that speech reaches that person in a way that makes him or her act on the things that he or she heard, whether they wanted to hear it or not? There are exceptions to every rule (not yelling fire when there is no fire, killing someone in self defense), where would the line be?
Click to expand...

Trump is not responsible for inciting January 6. He didn't call for anybody to do anything but come to DC to protest, as everyone has a right to do.

You're not calling Trump a cult leader, but then you compare him to a cult leader than "calls on his followers to go and kill minorities and they do it." Well, Trump did not do anything like that. He called on his supporters to rally in Washington. That's freedom of speech and association. Not only did he not "personally kill anyone", he did not tell anyone to kill anyone, or harm anyone, or harass anyone, or trespass, or anything else like that. He called on people to rally.

At what point does free speech become criminal? Free speech includes the advocacy of the use of force and advocacy of engaging in criminal activity, except that advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

Trump did not advocate the use of force. He also did not advocate that anyone engage in criminal activity. So, we don't even get to the exceptions - I.e. we don't even need to ask whether his advocacy of the use of force was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" because he didn't advocate the use of force at all. This exception was created because groups like communists and other Leftists will often advocate the benefits or necessity of force in general - that a revolution is needed, or that we should violently overthrow the government - people are allowed to talk about that stuff - except, you can't talk about that stuff if the talk is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action." AND -- repeat AND what the person says has to be LIKELY to incide or produce such action.

So, to analyze this issue, if you claim what Trump said was not protected speech, you need to identify a statement made by Donald Trump which (A) constitutes advocacy of the use of force, and (B) his advocacy of the use of force was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (C) his advocacy of the use of force was in fact likely to produce such lawless action.

Have at it - identify one comment or statement by Donald Trump which fits that description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom