The Media Is Against Free Speech

[MrNiceGuy]

He broke the rules my friend. You can whine about it all you want. There are rules. There are rules here - you break them, you get tossed. Please do cease your incessant whining and deal with it.

Who broke the rules?

 

[Argent]

Why wouldn't right wingers have the right to lie and pretend it's the truth? Left wingers have that same right and they exercise it all the time.

Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech. This is the hiccup that folks seem unable to come to terms with. Say what you will, live with the consequences which may consist of banning, ostracizing, et al.

What good comes from pretending? That's called denial and is, imo, a prime mover for why the US is turning into a shit hole country. Rather than defending our right to lie, we should be demanding truth. Truth seems to be the enemy now when it used to be a foundation of civilized society.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Considering, to my knowledge, most major media entities have "content" and or "editorial boards" and have had such for decades and decades, in essence these "content" and or "editorial boards" working as in house censorship staffs, picking and choosing that which will be allowed to be aired or printed and censoring which will not; I would have to agree with you.

Twitter isn't a news outlet - it's a platform for users to type what they want. If it is a news reporting outlet, like a newspaper, you'd have a point, but it isn't.

And, the issue isn't that Twitter "can" censor on its site. The issue is whether it does and how it does it. The disconcerting fact here is that MSNBC hosts and others are railing against the possibility that Musk would regulate speech less. They want voices silent and for others to tell you what you are allowed to see and hear. That's what the corporate media wants.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

whiny right winger.

That is the new argument of the day ---

 

[TheParser]

He broke the rules my friend. You can whine about it all you want. There are rules. There are rules here - you break them, you get tossed. Please do cease your incessant whining and deal

China and Russia and Iran and ... also have "rules."

You mention "democracy" on the Chinese Internet, you get tossed.
You condemn the Ukrainian massacre on the Russian Internet, you get 15 years in prison.
You praise Israel on the Iranian Internet, you lose your life.

If those are the kind of countries that you wish to emulate, that is your right.

Many Americans respectfully disagree with you and hope that guy is able to buy Twitter and let genuine freedom of speech flourish. (After all, hear tell the people responsible for setting up the Internet felt that it would finally give us little people an opportunity to express ourselves.)

 

[LouC]

Did you watch the video? He starts with showing MSNBC hosts saying exactly that free speech is dangerous.

They are outraged that Elon Musk might control Twitter, but they LOVED Bezos buying Washington Post, and right now Twitter is owned by billionaires already, and they don't seem to mind. What they mind is that a guy who says "more freedom of speech is good."

How about Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post, and having contracts with the CIA?

The MSNBC host says there are "massive consequences to just letting people run wild on the internet." People saying what they want to say is, to her, "running wild." LOL

Watch the video before you comment.

NO.

You never offered any compelling commentary to lure me into watching the video.

He who?

You are presenting to us a video of which you are making an interpretation of what some unnamed other is saying and presenting as their interpretation of snippets of what even more folks as supposedly saying about something they are observing and quantifying?

Wouldn't it be better for your argument to actually present clips of the segments in full context that the MSNBC folks in question are in so we could then decide for ourselves if what they are speaking is their admissions to hating FREE SPEECH as you contend?

I mean, if I want to have a slice of tomato on my sandwich I don't go to the cupboard to get a can of diced tomatoes.

I don't use the contents of a can of what was once tomatoes but that was sliced and diced and processed and cooked and packed and shipped.

I go and get a tomato and slice it myself.

 

[LouC]

Twitter isn't a news outlet - it's a platform for users to type what they want. If it is a news reporting outlet, like a newspaper, you'd have a point, but it isn't.

And, the issue isn't that Twitter "can" censor on its site. The issue is whether it does and how it does it. The disconcerting fact here is that MSNBC hosts and others are railing against the possibility that Musk would regulate speech less. They want voices silent and for others to tell you what you are allowed to see and hear. That's what the corporate media wants.

Well why didn't you provide evidence of that with your own interpretation to show their alleged FREE SPEECH HATE?

 

[StillBallin75]

1) Every right wing thread about free speech is a clinic in right wingers not understanding how free speech works.

2) Even by his own standards, Elon is not a "free speech" hero as he routinely punishes customers and employees for engaging in speech HE doesn't like.

3) Content moderation on the part of private actors, is exactly the marketplace of ideas filtering out abhorrent speech like it's supposed to.

4) If you want your free speech paradise there's always 8chan, nobody's stopping you from going there.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Well why didn't you provide evidence of that with your own interpretation to show their alleged FREE SPEECH HATE?

I did. You'd have to watch the video.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

1) Every right wing thread about free speech is a clinic in right wingers not understanding how free speech works.

2) Even by his own standards, Elon is not a "free speech" hero as he routinely punishes customers and employees for engaging in speech HE doesn't like.

3) Content moderation on the part of private actors, is exactly the marketplace of ideas filtering out abhorrent speech like it's supposed to.

4) If you want your free speech paradise there's always 8chan, nobody's stopping you from going there.

1. This isn't about right wingers, and I do know how free speech works. It's Left Wingers who have decided that now what free speech means is "what I think is misinformation is not allowed."
2. Don't you think that Elon punishing employees and customers from engaging in free speech he doesn't like is just fine?
3. Nobody said they couldn't content moderate. This thread is about media outlets like MSNBC and the New York Times championing more content moderation and suggesting that it s concerning and dangerous if people are allowed to post different opinions on Twitter. Surely you can puzzle out the signficant difference between accepting the reality that Twitter CAN content moderate (and ban news stories they don't like, etc.) as opposed to advocating that doing is "good." You do get that, don't you?
4. And nobody is stopping Twitter from being a champion of free speech. The fact that a private platform CAN censor legitimate news stories they don't like, and regulate speech to push a narrative, doesn't mean that doing so is "good."

 

[MrNiceGuy]

NO.

You never offered any compelling commentary to lure me into watching the video.

He who?

You are presenting to us a video of which you are making an interpretation of what some unnamed other is saying and presenting as their interpretation of snippets of what even more folks as supposedly saying about something they are observing and quantifying?

Wouldn't it be better for your argument to actually present clips of the segments in full context that the MSNBC folks in question are in so we could then decide for ourselves if what they are speaking is their admissions to hating FREE SPEECH as you contend?

I mean, if I want to have a slice of tomato on my sandwich I don't go to the cupboard to get a can of diced tomatoes.

I don't use the contents of a can of what was once tomatoes but that was sliced and diced and processed and cooked and packed and shipped.

I go and get a tomato and slice it myself.

Well, if you don't want to watch the video, absent compelling evidence, then why comment on a thread about which you choose to remain pig ignorant?

He? The host of the video - Socialist Jimmy Dore.

You just said I didn't offer any commentary, but then you accused me of "presenting an interpretation?" No, I didn't. I posted the video so people could watch it for themselves and determine if they agree or disagree with the points made, and why. I didn't want to summarize or "interpret" it, because then people like you would claim that I misrepresented it, so I didn't make any representations, other than to state the thesis of the video.

Present clips in full context? If you had watched the video, you will see that they presented the entirety of context. :You can decide for yourself. You just choose not to watch it.

Nobody presented you with diced tomatoes, and you'd know that if you watched the video, which you say you did not.

So, if you have nothing to say on the topic, then your non-point is noted.

 

[lurchadams]

China and Russia and Iran and ... also have "rules."

You mention "democracy" on the Chinese Internet, you get tossed.
You condemn the Ukrainian massacre on the Russian Internet, you get 15 years in prison.
You praise Israel on the Iranian Internet, you lose your life.

If those are the kind of countries that you wish to emulate, that is your right.

Many Americans respectfully disagree with you and hope that guy is able to buy Twitter and let genuine freedom of speech flourish. (After all, hear tell the people responsible for setting up the Internet felt that it would finally give us little people an opportunity to express ourselves.)

Private company rules. Deal with it. Period.

 

[lurchadams]

Who broke the rules?

Steve.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The problem the media has with what Elon Musk is doing, is that he wants to let people have free speech.

Manufacturing Consent

White House quits asking Saudis for more oil after verbal dust-up with top official: report

The United States has reportedly stopped asking Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to combat market disruption from Russia’s war with Ukraine as the relationship between the U.S. and the oil rich kingdom is said to have hit a new low.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Airyaman]

That isn't what they're in favor of. If Musk bought it, social media platforms would still be "able" to regulate speech. What they are objecting to is the notion that a Musk owned Twitter would instead CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO. That's a big difference, dontcha think?

They WANT the regulation (of others) because they believe - as the corporate media -- that they control the narrative, and they should control the narrative. They worry that if Musk takes over Twitter, they won't anymore.

Media does not control Twitter. Where'd you dream up that nonsense?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Private company rules. Deal with it. Period.

Nonsense. We are certainly entitled to criticize the rules corporations impose.

This is just typical hypocritical Leftist claptrap. You only say "deal with it" relative to corporate rules when you think those rules are in your favor or support your "narratives." And, that's the point - the MSNBC host is speaking about the "rules" she likes and thinks are important. If Twitter opted to do away with all those rules, it would still be a "private company" and she should just "deal with it?" Right? So what is the principled reason a censorious MSNBC host gets to comment on the topic, but for those of us who are Liberal when it comes to freedom of speech and want to minimize corporate censorship, we have to just shut up and "deal with it?"

Oh, I know - it's because you like what Twitter is doing, so **** everyone else, and screw objectivity and fairness of the application of rules. They silenced news stories on the Bidens, not the Trumps, so all good in your book.

That's the kind of people on the Left these days. Censorious douchebags who brook no dissent. Little Maoist Red Guard, ready to shut people up and report them to the authorities. Hardly anything more distasteful these days than the Progressive Left. A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Media does not control Twitter. Where'd you dream up that nonsense?

Nobody said it did. Twitter is controlled by billionaire hedge funds and Saudi Princes, which the Left wing media is very happy with, but what they aren't happy with is Elon Musk because he's not on the team of the censorious folks, and he wants to let people say what they want.

 

[lurchadams]

Nonsense. We are certainly entitled to criticize the rules corporations impose.

This is just typical hypocritical Leftist claptrap. You only say "deal with it" relative to corporate rules when you think those rules are in your favor or support your "narratives." And, that's the point - the MSNBC host is speaking about the "rules" she likes and thinks are important. If Twitter opted to do away with all those rules, it would still be a "private company" and she should just "deal with it?" Right? So what is the principled reason a censorious MSNBC host gets to comment on the topic, but for those of us who are Liberal when it comes to freedom of speech and want to minimize corporate censorship, we have to just shut up and "deal with it?"

Oh, I know - it's because you like what Twitter is doing, so **** everyone else, and screw objectivity and fairness of the application of rules. They silenced news stories on the Bidens, not the Trumps, so all good in your book.

That's the kind of people on the Left these days. Censorious douchebags who brook no dissent. Little Maoist Red Guard, ready to shut people up and report them to the authorities. Hardly anything more distasteful these days than the Progressive Left. A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Hey, let's do an experiment now. Insult my family - threaten me with violence and see what happens to you here.

Rules are rules. Rules aren't just for your political enemies my friend. For the last time deal with it - or don't, I don't care.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Hey, let's do an experiment now. Insult my family - threaten me with violence and see what happens to you here.

Rules are rules. Rules aren't just for your political enemies my friend. For the last time deal with it - or don't, I don't care.

I neither insulted your family, nor threatened you.

Nor have I said there ought not be rules. The fact that there are rules is not the same thing as saying that all rules are good. Twitter is censorious, and not just in the objective fashion of deleting threats of violence and stopping harassment - they censor based on politics. That's what this is about.

"Rules aren't just for your poltical enemies my friend." Exactly. But for leftists rules ARE just for political enemies, and for Twitter, rules ARE just for political enemies. People who espouse the Hunter Biden laptop story - the rules are for them - but they aren't for any scurrilous comment about Donald Trump. That's YOUR SIDE that does that, not mine.

And, YOU deal with it. If Musk buys control of Twitter, are you just going to "deal with it" and not comment at all? If he totally opens up free speech on Twitter and allows Donald Trump back on, and doesn't censor news stories about Hunter and Joe Biden, you're just going to keep your mouth shut about it? Come on - you know damn well you won't, nor should you. That's what free speech is all about.

 

[lurchadams]

I neither insulted your family, nor threatened you.

Nor have I said there ought not be rules. The fact that there are rules is not the same thing as saying that all rules are good. Twitter is censorious, and not just in the objective fashion of deleting threats of violence and stopping harassment - they censor based on politics. That's what this is about.

"Rules aren't just for your poltical enemies my friend." Exactly. But for leftists rules ARE just for political enemies, and for Twitter, rules ARE just for political enemies. People who espouse the Hunter Biden laptop story - the rules are for them - but they aren't for any scurrilous comment about Donald Trump. That's YOUR SIDE that does that, not mine.

And, YOU deal with it. If Musk buys control of Twitter, are you just going to "deal with it" and not comment at all? If he totally opens up free speech on Twitter and allows Donald Trump back on, and doesn't censor news stories about Hunter and Joe Biden, you're just going to keep your mouth shut about it? Come on - you know damn well you won't, nor should you. That's what free speech is all about.

The same rules are applied to everyone on Twitter.

 

[Argent]

Elon Musk because he's not on the team of the censorious folks, and he wants to let people say what they want.

Is credibility important to you? Do you want to exist on a diet of lies? What do you think happens when people are lied to so often they lose the ability to identify truth? The answer to that last question is what's happening now in the US. Instead of whinging about free speech without consequence, how about we start demanding standards, evidence, facts and instead of spoon feeding people lies, give them evidence, pro and con perspectives and see what happens? Social and main stream media aren't about free speech, they're about profit. Profits are increased in proportion to the drama imbued in their platforms. Media grab benign headlines and turn them into circuses creating an addictive feeding frenzy for crap. Compare an old time news broadcast by Walter Cronkite with what passes for media today. One was based on fact without emotion and today's media is all about raising emotion which overwhelms the ability of its audiences to use reason.

 

[JasperL]

"For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less." - Washington Post columnist Max Boot

You're welcome.

It's frightening how easily the right wing has been persuaded that 'free speech' means "we (the right) get to say whatever we want, where and when we want, without consequences...."

Moderation of a private website is not an infringement in any way on "free speech." There's never been a moment in all of U.S. history that the "media" didn't moderate the crap out of their content. If someone in your kitchen insults your wife or kids, do you "moderate" that content by kicking the asshole out? I would, and if you do that you're moderating content, so why do you hate FREE SPEECH?!!! Your church, employer moderate content. Why do churches hate FREE SPEECH!!!? When was the last time an atheist took the pulpit? NEVER! They're against FREEDOM!! If an employee calls another a n-word for no reason, does the employer reprimand/fire the person? If they do they HATE FREE SPEECH!!!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Is credibility important to you? Do you want to exist on a diet of lies? What do you think happens when people are lied to so often they lose the ability to identify truth? The answer to that last question is what's happening now in the US. Instead of whinging about free speech without consequence, how about we start demanding standards, evidence, facts and instead of spoon feeding people lies, give them evidence, pro and con perspectives and see what happens? Social and main stream media aren't about free speech, they're about profit. Profits are increased in proportion to the drama imbued in their platforms. Media grab benign headlines and turn them into circuses creating an addictive feeding frenzy for crap. Compare an old time news broadcast by Walter Cronkite with what passes for media today. One was based on fact without emotion and today's media is all about raising emotion which overwhelms the ability of its audiences to use reason.

I am all for evidence, pro and con perspecrives, but I am not naive enough to expect that both sides will honorably do that. The Left is just as full of bullshit as the right.

Yes, Twitter is about profit, but that doesn't mean we ought not champion free speech. Also, Twitter is being used, not just for profit, but also to push a political narrative - a pro-Democrat - pro-Left wing political narrative. If the censoring - if the rules -- were applied neutrally and objectively, you would have far fewer complaints about them. The trouble is, like CNN, MSNBC and the NY Times' "mistakes" - they all flow one direction.

And, I do long for the days of better news commentary. We don't have a Firing Line with William F. Buckley anymore. We have people shouting back and forth. I don't disagree with that. But, that does not excuse journalists from their ridiculous positions that THEY control what we think, and that people shouldn't be allowed to "go wild" on the internet and "gasp" express whatever opinions they want. Look at Mika Brzenski of MSNBC. That scumbag literally said that "it's our job to tell people WHAT TO THINK." Ahhh... no it is not. It's her job to search for the truth and report news and events accurately, as accurately as she can without prejudice. It is OUR JOB, the people, to think what we please. Never forget that, and never give that up.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It's frightening how easily the right wing has been persuaded that 'free speech' means "we (the right) get to say whatever we want, where and when we want, without consequences...."

Moderation of a private website is not an infringement in any way on "free speech." There's never been a moment in all of U.S. history that the "media" didn't moderate the crap out of their content. If someone in your kitchen insults your wife or kids, do you "moderate" that content by kicking the asshole out? I would, and if you do that you're moderating content, so why do you hate FREE SPEECH?!!! Your church, employer moderate content. Why do churches hate FREE SPEECH!!!? When was the last time an atheist took the pulpit? NEVER! They're against FREEDOM!! If an employee calls another a n-word for no reason, does the employer reprimand/fire the person? If they do they HATE FREE SPEECH!!!

All depends on the "consequences." Remember, under equal protection of the law, any legal consequences must apply equally to left wingers.

Moderation of a private website is not an infringement of the First Amendment, no. But it is censorship. And if a platform is a de facto town square, then it is not the same thing as a living room or the lobby of an office. If an employer decided to make a rule that only leftist (or only right wing) political views could be expressed in the workplace, that employer would certainly be within their rights to censor like that. But we are also within our rights to criticize such a biased rule as unfair, censorious and douchebaggy. We can make the same assessment of rules in plaforms and discussion fora.

 

[JasperL]

Nonsense. We are certainly entitled to criticize the rules corporations impose.

This is just typical hypocritical Leftist claptrap. You only say "deal with it" relative to corporate rules when you think those rules are in your favor or support your "narratives." And, that's the point - the MSNBC host is speaking about the "rules" she likes and thinks are important. If Twitter opted to do away with all those rules, it would still be a "private company" and she should just "deal with it?" Right? So what is the principled reason a censorious MSNBC host gets to comment on the topic, but for those of us who are Liberal when it comes to freedom of speech and want to minimize corporate censorship, we have to just shut up and "deal with it?"

Oh, I know - it's because you like what Twitter is doing, so **** everyone else, and screw objectivity and fairness of the application of rules. They silenced news stories on the Bidens, not the Trumps, so all good in your book.

That's the kind of people on the Left these days. Censorious douchebags who brook no dissent. Little Maoist Red Guard, ready to shut people up and report them to the authorities. Hardly anything more distasteful these days than the Progressive Left. A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Remind me again which party is passing anti-CRT legislation across the country.

That's what infringements on 1A rights looks like. That is the government regulating/limiting speech, and the same right wingers crying about Twitter are turning around and voting to prohibit speech in schools. Bunch of ****ing hypocrites. The anti-CRT legislation literally encourages parents to report violations of those bans to....the authorities, and you talk about the left being "censorious douchebags?" The abortion law in Texas relies on citizens reporting on and suing other citizens. It's always projection with the right wing - always.

The reason the media are protected by the 1A is BECAUSE the founders expected the media to be biased, because the press was incredibly biased in that era, and wanted to encourage the 'press' to be as biased as they want without fear of government retribution.