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

[PirateMk1]

Shaun King
@shaunking

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.

The correct answer is yes. The only limit to "speech" on a public platform should be its legality IE kiddie porn ect.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Trolling hate speech adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Brandenburg v. Ohio

 

[Josie]

I don't have a group.

Oh? You'd think your group would be the one where there are no idiots.................................

Maybe if you identify with a group, maybe you're closer to being in a cult than I am.

Nope. Almost everyone has a "team" in the political world. The cult mentality comes from blindly following without question and refusing to believe anything about your group is wrong or bad or negative in any way.

 

[Ethel2]

These are two different questions. The whole point of free speech is that it doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. Should a private corporation that has no legal liability for content allow it? Sure.

I see. And where do you draw the line?
How about “free speech” that advocates shooting people of color?
Or judges.
Or politicians. You know it’s illegal to threaten a lot of politicians with violence.
How about free speech that organizes terrorist attacks? Or selling illegal drugs? I mean, it’s just talk-right?
This is a stupid thread. Of course hate speech against defined minorities should be banned.
There are limits to free speech. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater. You can’t threaten to shoot the president.
You want to exercise bigoted free speech do it in private with your bigoted friends. Not on a public platform.

 

[Ethel2]

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..

Or Musk.

 

[Josie]

I actually can name plenty, but I'd like to hear your choices.
Okay...I'll bite.
I would start with an entire community...the so called "wellness community".
These WERE the ORIGINAL anti-vaxxers and yes, they originated ON the LEFT.
We'd almost shrunk them to the point of insignificance when Jenny McCarthy sprang onto the American scene.
And now the rot has spread like some poison gospel to the Trump-Right, and together they have found common cause.

I would also include most of the folks who like to ID themselves as "trained marxists", even though I am
guilty of perusing the pages of Jacobin Magazine once in a while.

But "trained marxists" are for the most part, against democracy because most democracies use the tools of
capitalism, something they abhor to the marrow of their bones. I, being a capitalist, cannot reckon with a lot of their views because I do not view capitalism as an evil.
I view the abuses and excesses of UNCHECKED UNREGULATED capitalism as a potential threat to democracy, however if regulated the way any powerful force is regulated (think FIRE, for instance) then capitalism is, in my opinion, an excellent tool.

But if we wish to avoid massive incendiary style fiscal conflagrations capable of wiping out entire generations, then we must harness capitalism in order to protect against excess and abuse. We learned that already.

Your move.

Any leftie on The View, Keith Olbermann, anyone who thinks they're entitled to stealing thousands of dollars worth of merchandise because of "social justice", anyone who throws Molotov cocktails at the police, anyone who participates in riots, anyone who wants a complete ban of all firearms, anyone who wants to replace the police with social workers, anyone who thinks Bush blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11, anyone who thinks that conservatives should be shouted down or threatened because they disagree with what they're saying ............ I could go on.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Side Note: be careful what you wish for.

 

[reflechissez]

Any leftie on The View, Keith Olbermann, anyone who thinks they're entitled to stealing thousands of dollars worth of merchandise because of "social justice", anyone who throws Molotov cocktails at the police, anyone who participates in riots, anyone who wants a complete ban of all firearms, anyone who wants to replace the police with social workers, anyone who thinks Bush blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11, anyone who thinks that conservatives should be shouted down or threatened because they disagree with what they're saying ............ I could go on.

Please don't.

 

[multivita-man]

Please don't.

Post of the thread!

 

[Napoleon]

Well, since you seem to know so much about Elon Musk, how did he make all his money? Tell us

He and two others created travel guide software in the early 90s that was bought by Compaq for $307 million in 1999. He then went on to co-found what would ultimately become PayPal which was bought by EBay for $1.5 billion in 2002. All of that money was put in the market and that is where he makes his billions.

After that he used his market resources to form five different companies over the years (SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity, Neuralink, and The Boring Company) none which have ever been profitable and only exist for, more-or-less, his own personal amusement. You can add Twitter to that pile now.

There’s a cult out there that thinks Musk is some kind of visionary messiah. The truth is that he’s an eccentric, all of these companies operate at a loss, and nobody serious about business would lug that kind of dead weight around for 20 years. You can be sure that none of these companies will outlive him or at the very least would be recognizable after people with a sense of fiduciary duty get their hands on them.

 

[Napoleon]

I see. And where do you draw the line?
How about “free speech” that advocates shooting people of color?
Or judges.
Or politicians. You know it’s illegal to threaten a lot of politicians with violence.
How about free speech that organizes terrorist attacks? Or selling illegal drugs? I mean, it’s just talk-right?
This is a stupid thread. Of course hate speech against defined minorities should be banned.
There are limits to free speech. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater. You can’t threaten to shoot the president.
You want to exercise bigoted free speech do it in private with your bigoted friends. Not on a public platform.

I am a defined minority and I don’t believe in shutting people up because they say things I find offensive. That is not free speech and if people are using their speech for illegal activities then give them the rope to hang themselves with.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I don't support the idea that all speech is free speech. I also think that racists and bigots of any political party should be doxxed and removed.

The idea of free speech isn't that bad people can't be doxed and removed. They certainly can be from a privately run website, like this one.

However, another privately run website might dox and remove communists, socialists, and other assorted ne'er-do-wells.

Other people who don't support the idea that all speech is free speech would like you to be doxed and removed from various places, too.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I don't know why it's so hard for you lot to understand, but racists and bigots and yes, even leftists, have the right to voice their opinions.

Correct, and so do their opponents.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Read my post. I never said in my post that I was comparing Trump to a cult leader. I was using a cult leader as an example of free speech that could cause an incitement to violence. Where did I specifically compare Trump to a cult leader? Respond to the post, not to your assumptions of what I may be inferring. If I thought Trump was a cult leader, I would have said it.

That is the problem with people like you. You try to read into what I may be saying, when I spell it out clear as day. Show me where I specifically compared Trump to a cult leader? It is called reading comprehension, not reading assumption.

If you have paid attention to other posts in other threads I have said in the matter of January 6th, I have said if anyone should be charged with inciting violence that day, it should be Giuliani. He is the one who called for "trial by combat".

I did, and your post began by asserting that "Trump is responsible for inciting" the capital riot (with things he said)

Then you gave an example that a cult leader might tell his followers to commit murder, and then they do it (because of what the cult leader said)

Then you asked "where is the line drawn on free speech?" Suggesting that the cult leader is clearly over the line, and that others might also be over the line, but asking how do we identify the line....

It appeared from your post that you were suggesting that Trump may have crossed that line because what he said caused the riot and he was "responsible" for it. I was explaining how trump quite obviously did not cross that line, and what he said was free speech, even if idiots breached the capitol thinking that's what Trump wanted them to do. If I'm wrong about that, my apologies.

Of course we all know that a cult leader can command someone to commit murder, and that isn't free speech to do so - the cult leader might be prosecuted for it.. However, if a Cult leader says "we're going to fight for what we believe in, and I want you to march in the street and not let them get away with it..." and then they march oin the street, but also break into buildings and kill peopel, without more, based just on that, the cult leader is not responsible for their actions and his speech is free speech.

The answer to your question was that even advocacy of violence and lawbreaking is free speech, unless it is specifically calling for imminent violent action AND the words have to be likely to cause such action. See my previous post explaining that. If you think someone did that, then by all means, quote them.

And, even Giuliani's comments don't fall within unprotected speech. He called for "trial by combat?" That's just campaign speech, and it is not a call for imminent violence. He's giving a speech about finding fraud and prosecuting people for it. Let's have "trial by combat." Trial by combat where there is an absence of witnesses or evidence, a Court would settle the dispute by making the accused and the accuser fight it out. A judicially sanctioned duel. People are allowed to advocate trial by combat.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

That doesn't mean that anyone is claiming "all speech should be allowed."

Just because you think it's wrong for a company to ban someone for saying "Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong" doesn't mean you support hate speech.

Unless you define "kyle rittenhouse did nothing wrong..." as hate speech. Then, of course, it does mean exactly that, and the Left defines almost anything they disagree with as bigotry, hate, or fascinazisystemoppressaphobia....

 

[post]

Shaun King
@shaunking

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.

Deplorable and "green lighting" anti-American, anti-social opinions go hand in hand. I am shocked!


To make it crystal....consideration of G.O.P. candidates, 53% of G.O.P. voters do not object to antisemitism, 75% do not object to homophobic remarks or gestures, 62% do not object to G.O.P. candidates making racist remarks or gestures.

 

[donhughesmusic]

And, even Giuliani's comments don't fall within unprotected speech. He called for "trial by combat?" That's just campaign speech,

So, what office was Giuliani campaigning for? The elections were over so Trump wasn't campaigning either.

 

[donhughesmusic]

I actually find this very interesting, because we are seeing this play out with the January 6th arguments that Trump is responsible for inciting.

I did, and your post began by asserting that "Trump is responsible for inciting" the capital riot (with things he said)

As you can see from my original post, i did not assert that Trump was responsible. I am talking about the ARGUMENT that Trump was responsible. I never once said "I think Trump is responsible". Reading comprehension.

 

[Queen Margo]

He and two others created travel guide software in the early 90s that was bought by Compaq for $307 million in 1999. He then went on to co-found what would ultimately become PayPal which was bought by EBay for $1.5 billion in 2002. All of that money was put in the market and that is where he makes his billions.

After that he used his market resources to form five different companies over the years (SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity, Neuralink, and The Boring Company) none which have ever been profitable and only exist for, more-or-less, his own personal amusement. You can add Twitter to that pile now.

There’s a cult out there that thinks Musk is some kind of visionary messiah. The truth is that he’s an eccentric, all of these companies operate at a loss, and nobody serious about business would lug that kind of dead weight around for 20 years. You can be sure that none of these companies will outlive him or at the very least would be recognizable after people with a sense of fiduciary duty get their hands on them.

Well. it does take talent in whatever form to become as wealthy as he has, right? He may buy companies for his pleasure, so what?
Now, just think if Trump had not shook up the WORLD with his run for presidency and won, even though only one term, NONE of this would probably happened. The hate of Trump by the left has come home to roost in so many ways. I hope the left NEVER quits talking and despising Trump. The hate exposes as to what is really going on.

 

[Ethel2]

I am a defined minority and I don’t believe in shutting people up because they say things I find offensive. That is not free speech and if people are using their speech for illegal activities then give them the rope to hang themselves with.

I am also a defined minority. I don’t mind people saying that they don’t care for the minority I belong to, but I draw the line at threats of violence on social media.

 

[Napoleon]

Well. it does take talent in whatever form to become as wealthy as he has, right?

Not really. His stock portfolio manager(s) make his money.

He may buy companies for his pleasure, so what?
Now, just think if Trump had not shook up the WORLD with his run for presidency and won, even though only one term, NONE of this would probably happened. The hate of Trump by the left has come home to roost in so many ways. I hope the left NEVER quits talking and despising Trump. The hate exposes as to what is really going on.

What does any of this have to do with Trump?

 

[Queen Margo]

Not really. His stock portfolio manager(s) make his money.

What does any of this have to do with Trump?

I guess you have to have stock portfolio managers that know what they are doing, right? You want to dismiss Musk so bad.
Trump has EVERYTHING to do with it!

 

[mrjurrs]

Its going to depend on what you mean by 'guarantee' There are statutes that do work to contain the scope of private penalties inflicted by non govt actors for specific speech against their interest . The most obvious examples sitting in the National Labor Relations Act and the Taft Hartley Act which specifically defines the termination and discipline of employees trying to advocate and support unionization as an unfair labor practice and subject to a hearing with the National Labor Relations Board and the organisation of secondary boycotts as likewise a breach. Then there are all those whistleblower statutes, designed to prohibit employers from firing the 'tattlers' either to govt agencies or the even the media in some cases. ( that is speech!) https://www.law360.com/articles/1324595/the-many-ways-private-employee-speech-is-protected

But you are correct that these are rather narrow exceptions. Mostly policy in non governmental actors about any impediments to free and open communication of ideas, is based in their own policies. So I am talking about are those policies written by private actors to contain perceived abuses of authority by their own . They can be written by employers, private universities, church or private club bylaws, unions, whatever or they can simply be informal recognition of a tradition which recognises people ought to be free to express their political or social opinions without being discarded, shunned, and marginalized for doing so.

If you work for the right employer, when someone calls them and asked what they intend to do with their evidence that you went to a MAGA meeting with an offensive shirt, or were seen at the front of a BLM rally talking radicalism, their response may just be that their 'policy' is to respect their employees rights to speak out on their own time, about the causes they feel passionate about, and then slam the phone down!

If you play a private baseball league, they may just tell the same source that their 'policy' is to mind their own damn business, and recommend the caller do the same!

Those are the kinds of conversations about policy and values of free speech that the limitations of the first amendment don't come near answering but are well worth having.

As I see it, there are laws that govern every business. I don't see your examples as being free speech issues. Can those workers step off site and say the things they want? If yes, I don't see that as a free speech issue.

 

[notquiteright]

...and manipulate investment values.

Elon Musk says Tesla will once again accept bitcoin

This is good for the price of bitcoin.

www.vox.com

What's the use of being a billionaire if you can't manipulate the system. Coloring within the lines is for the little people...