Free Speech (1 Viewer)

[Liberal7360]

Florida, Texas and other conservative controlled states have written laws that violate the first amendment.

The Bill of Rights and free speech applies to the government. Not private business.

A public school is the government. The governments of many conservative controlled states has taken free speech from children, teachers, parents and authors.

They have banned books and are banning more books. Even math books.

Yet conservatives are very upset about social media, which are private companies and the bill of rights doesn't apply to them, making rules about their websites then imposing the consequences of breaking those rules on those who break them.

Some conservatives cheer conservative governments on in their quest of taking free speech from children, teachers, parents and authors.

Some conservatives have been all over this board about free speech and social media sites but they cheer on taking free speech from those who have a different view from them.

I support free speech. I don't support hate, lies and propaganda.

I support private business. Ownership has it's privileges. The owners can set any rule they want within our laws. If I don't like their rules, I walk away from them. No one is forcing me to use their sites.

A private company isn't the public square. It's not the government.

A public school is the public square. It is the government. The governments of conservative states who are passing these anti free speech laws are violating the constitution.

I find it very sad that people pick and choose according to whether they agree with what is being said.

Those conservatives who support what conservative governments in conservative states are doing by taking free speech from children, teachers, parents and authors don't believe in free speech and are not being honest when they whine about trump not being able to spread lies, hate and propaganda all over one social media site.

trump has started his "truth" site. No one is stopping the conservatives from using it. No one is stopping trump from spreading his message of lies, hate and division.

Meanwhile, the children, teachers, parents and authors in conservative states don't have their right to free speech in public schools.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I support free speech. I don't support hate, lies and propaganda.

If you don't support someone you don't like, to say something you don't like, you are not for free speech, not at all.

 

[Lisa]

If you don't support someone you don't like, to say something you don't like, you are not for free speech, not at all.

That is as clear as mud, even after reading it 3 times.

 

[Evilroddy]

Florida, Texas and other conservative controlled states have written laws that violate the first amendment.

The Bill of Rights and free speech applies to the government. Not private business.

A public school is the government. The governments of many conservative controlled states has taken free speech from children, teachers, parents and authors.

They have banned books and are banning more books. Even math books.

Yet conservatives are very upset about social media, which are private companies and the bill of rights doesn't apply to them, making rules about their websites then imposing the consequences of breaking those rules on those who break them.

Some conservatives cheer conservative governments on in their quest of taking free speech from children, teachers, parents and authors.

Some conservatives have been all over this board about free speech and social media sites but they cheer on taking free speech from those who have a different view from them.

I support free speech. I don't support hate, lies and propaganda.

I support private business. Ownership has it's privileges. The owners can set any rule they want within our laws. If I don't like their rules, I walk away from them. No one is forcing me to use their sites.

A private company isn't the public square. It's not the government.

A public school is the public square. It is the government. The governments of conservative states who are passing these anti free speech laws are violating the constitution.

I find it very sad that people pick and choose according to whether they agree with what is being said.

Those conservatives who support what conservative governments in conservative states are doing by taking free speech from children, teachers, parents and authors don't believe in free speech and are not being honest when they whine about trump not being able to spread lies, hate and propaganda all over one social media site.

trump has started his "truth" site. No one is stopping the conservatives from using it. No one is stopping trump from spreading his message of lies, hate and division.

Meanwhile, the children, teachers, parents and authors in conservative states don't have their right to free speech in public schools.

Liberal7360:

Well then, it's high time that all public schools started teaching kids how to construct bombs and WMDs from agricultural products and medical waste! Let the Second American Revolution begin!

To be serious now, however. Schools are not public spaces for political debate. Schools are institutions designed to educate and socialise young, future citizens impartially in order that they become capabable, critical-thinking and analytical adults. To achieve such ends schools have to establish and follow educational curricula and not dive into the political cause de jour each day. This requires a structured environment and not a political free-for-all. So restricting what can be taught and how it should be taught is more about following a disciplined curriculum rather than censoring free speech.

Deciding about banned books and forced or prohibited content is an issue between the teachers, the school administrations, the parents' committees and the state. Leave the kids and the uninvolved parents out of it. Teachers and school administrators must muster the courage and conviction necessary to push back hard against governments and government departments which try to turn school from impartial institutions of learning into partisan tools of politicisation. Teachers and school administrators must perhaps risk their jobs and their pensions in order to prevent the state corrupting education into de facto indoctrination.

Free speech has only limited room in a classroom where teaching and more importantly learning are supposed to occur. The class is not afree agora for inchoate minds to mimic public debate. It is a place to learn and to be guided impartially.

I am a teacher by the way.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Deuce]

If you don't support someone you don't like, to say something you don't like, you are not for free speech, not at all.

So, you support every single thing Joe Biden says?

 

[Deuce]

Liberal7360:

Well then, it's high time that all public schools started teaching kids how to construct bombs and WMDs from agricultural products and medical waste! Let the Second American Revolution begin!

To be serious now, however. Schools are not public spaces for political debate. Schools are institutions designed to educate and socialise young, future citizens impartially in order that they become capabable, critical-thinking and analytical adults. To achieve such ends schools have to establish and follow educational curricula and not dive into the political cause de jour each day. This requires a structured environment and not a political free-for-all. So restricting what can be taught and how it should be taught is more about following a disciplined curriculum rather than censoring free speech.

Deciding about banned books and forced or prohibited content is an issue between the teachers, the school administrations, the parents' committees and the state. Leave the kids and the uninvolved parents out of it. Teachers and school administrators must muster the courage and conviction necessary to push back hard against governments and government departments which try to turn school from impartial institutions of learning into partisan tools of politicisation. Teachers and school administrators must perhaps risk their jobs and their pensions in order to prevent the state corrupting education into de facto indoctrination.

Free speech has only limited room in a classroom where teaching and more importantly learning are supposed to occur. The class is not afree agora for inchoate minds to mimic public debate. It is a place to learn and to be guided impartially.

I am a teacher by the way.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Would you like to discuss, as a teacher, the idea that George Takei's book on growing up in a concentration camp should be banned?

 

[What if...?]

If you don't support someone you don't like, to say something you don't like, you are not for free speech, not at all.

Pedophile/terrorist grooming is “speech”.

Am I allowed to be against that?

 

[Buckeyes85]

That is as clear as mud, even after reading it 3 times.

I trust you to provide me with the cliff's notes version of things, at least to the extent you can decipher the intent? Any help?

 

[DarkWizard12]

So, you support every single thing Joe Biden says?

I support Joe Biden saying stupid shit i don't like. Will I be there to call him out? yes. Do I want twitter to censor his tweets, or CNN to censor or cut his speeches? No.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Pedophile/terrorist grooming is “speech”.

Am I allowed to be against that?

Molesting kids is speech? what? That's your position?

 

[Evilroddy]

Would you like to discuss, as a teacher, the idea that George Takei's book on growing up in a concentration camp should be banned?

Deuce:

? Why hijack the thread? The Takei book may be appropriate for older students but not for younger ones but honestly I don't know. I have not read the book, so I cannot comment further, I'm afraid.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Would you like to discuss, as a teacher, the idea that George Takei's book on growing up in a concentration camp should be banned?

Deuce:

I looked up the book. It's a comic book/graphic novel. It talks about an event in American history. I would have no objection to it being in a school library but I would not use it to teach about Japanese internment in America during WWII. There are better sources. It might be useful in helping kids with reading or learning disabilities however. I remind you that I have not read the book so I don't know if it's content is appropriate for use in schools.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Lisa]

I trust you to provide me with the cliff's notes version of things, at least to the extent you can decipher the intent? Any help?

It is a very tortured version of Voltartie's (supposedly) quote on free speech. I detest what you say but I will defend your right to say it.

 

[Deuce]

I support Joe Biden saying stupid shit i don't like. Will I be there to call him out? yes. Do I want twitter to censor his tweets, or CNN to censor or cut his speeches? No.

Do you support making it illegal for Twitter to enforce rules of conduct on the platform they own?

 

[Deuce]

Deuce:

? Why hijack the thread? The Takei book may be appropriate for older students but not for younger ones but honestly I don't know. I have not read the book, so I cannot comment further, I'm afraid.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

It was banned under the guise of these anti-CRT movements.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

If anything, schools themselves tend to squash free speech, more specifically, outside the classroom into social media. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of a high school cheerleader. That was punished for posting her rant about her school on social media.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-06-23/supreme-court-sides-with-cheerleader-in-first-amendment-social-media-case

 

[DarkWizard12]

Pedophile/terrorist grooming is “speech”.

Am I allowed to be against that?

Molesting kids is speech? what? That's your position?

Do you support making it illegal for Twitter to enforce rules of conduct on the platform they own?

Depends on how its done. Do i want it to be some criminal thing? No. do i want the service to become a public utility? I'm open to that, but I wouldn't want the government to play an active role. Maybe, making them subject to civil, private lawsuits, or arbitration for violating their own terms of service is something I would support.

 

[Lisa]

If anything, schools themselves tend to squash free speech, more specifically, outside the classroom into social media. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of a high school cheerleader. That was punished for posting her rant about her school on social media.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-06-23/supreme-court-sides-with-cheerleader-in-first-amendment-social-media-case

Free speech doesn't apply on social media because that is private property that you don't own or pay to use until you say something very threatening at which time you can be arrested or fined. Twitter, like every other platform, can create a TOS of their own and you would have n0o recourse because you didn't pay for it and your use is voluntary at their discretion.

You would have more rights if you paid to use it, because you could claim that you are a customer. You can still be arrested or thrown off if you become an annoyance or threat to others, just as a business can tell you to leave or have the police arrest you for your actions, as we as being banned from future admittance.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Free speech doesn't apply on social media because that is private property that you don't own or pay to use until you say something very threatening at which time you can be arrested or fined. Twitter, like every other platform, can create a TOS of their own and you would have n0o recourse because you didn't pay for it and your use is voluntary at their discretion.

You would have more rights if you paid to use it, because you could claim that you are a customer. You can still be arrested or thrown off if you become an annoyance or threat to others, just as a business can tell you to leave or have the police arrest you for your actions, as we as being banned from future admittance.

That's not what is being talked about. A rant on social media from a student about her school about the post. She got disciplined by the school which was a free speech issue that the Supreme Court squashed.

Not only are you in the wrong ballpark, but the wrong planet.

 

[SkyChief]

. . . Meanwhile, the children, teachers, parents and authors in conservative states don't have their right to free speech in public schools.

Here is an example of the inappropriate (and vulgar) nonsense that conservatives want out of public schools:

 

[Deuce]

Depends on how its done. Do i want it to be some criminal thing? No. do i want the service to become a public utility? I'm open to that, but I wouldn't want the government to play an active role. Maybe, making them subject to civil, private lawsuits, or arbitration for violating their own terms of service is something I would support.

Public utilities have a government role, that's what they are.

You give lip service to minimal government role, but you're proposing that government bureaucrats and unelected judges be the ones in charge of whether or not Twitter's rule enforcement is "fair." Is this something you support in other industries? Should Chick-Fil-A have the government poking its nose in whether or not some of its "Christian values" practices are "fair?"

Or, as I suspect, is this really just right wingers wanting to retaliate against Twitter because they see it as the enemy? Like removing Section 230 protections in the name of free speech. Removing Section 230 protections from social media causes more censorship, not less! But the Trump supporters don't realize that. They just hear it's a thing that will hurt Twitter, and that's what they want.

 

[Deuce]

Here is an example of the inappropriate (and vulgar) nonsense that conservatives want out of public schools:

Yes, anything you don't agree with MUST BE CENSORED!!!

 

[Lisa]

That's not what is being talked about. A rant on social media from a student about her school about the post. She got disciplined by the school which was a free speech issue that the Supreme Court squashed.

Not only are you in the wrong ballpark, but the wrong planet.

Her free speech wasn't quashed because the SCOTUS ultimately sided in her favor. Why do I need to explain this to you?

Why are you trying to deflect and derail the discussion? What happens in a public school or other government function does not in any way create the same precedent as the Twitterverse.

 

[Liberal7360]

Would you like to discuss, as a teacher, the idea that George Takei's book on growing up in a concentration camp should be banned?

I don't see any reason why it should be banned.

I don't see any reason why all of a sudden countless books are banned.

Yet these same people whine about free speech while they take free speech from children, teachers, parents and authors.

Do you support such hypocrisy?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Public utilities have a government role, that's what they are.

You give lip service to minimal government role, but you're proposing that government bureaucrats and unelected judges be the ones in charge of whether or not Twitter's rule enforcement is "fair." Is this something you support in other industries? Should Chick-Fil-A have the government poking its nose in whether or not some of its "Christian values" practices are "fair?"

Or, as I suspect, is this really just right wingers wanting to retaliate against Twitter because they see it as the enemy? Like removing Section 230 protections in the name of free speech. Removing Section 230 protections from social media causes more censorship, not less! But the Trump supporters don't realize that. They just hear it's a thing that will hurt Twitter, and that's what they want.

what you point out is the trick, isn't it?

we don't want government institutions, run and poisoned by leftists, to run these public forums.

Yet, these public forums are so badly run, that only the left gets a voice. It's quite a conundrum, and it's why, i think, Elon Musk buying them out is the best route right now. And if not that, a constitutional amendment protecting consumer rights on public platforms. That way, if the government were to get involved, they have to be on the side of the consumer, not the tech executive.

as for section 230, that's entirely a negotiating tactic. If twitter et al quits editorializing, i support giving them 230 protections back.That is, i think, how s 230 should be reformed. If you are deleting what other people are saying on your platform, you are no different from a publisher, and should be treated as such legally.