Ask Your Question today
Whether it's: twitter bans; facebook jail; cancel culture; or, political correctness in general, I think speech should be unlimited.
I have no problem silencing someone when they are inciting violence or threatening the peace, but censoring someone just because they're being "mean" is unacceptable.
Censorship does more harm than good, and even though the first amendment only applies to the public sphere, out of principle, I wish more people valued it as much as I do.
When I say "free speech," I mean that people should have a right to speak WITHOUT being silenced.
It is highly ironic how so many people who claim to believe that the US Constitution is holy writ don't actually understand what it means.
There was, may still be, a trend of people without licenses or insurance who believe they "have the right of travel" and don't need any of those things. They post videos of cops busting in their windows as proof of injustice. They call themselves sovereign citizens.
They validate that position based on a legal dictionary from like the 1800s
I first heard of sovereign citizens years ago, but I've watched quite a few YouTube videos featuring them recently. I find them alternatingly hilarious, cringe-making and infuriating. My conclusion is that they're all pretty stupid, all suffering acute cases of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, all desperate for attention, and their emotional development ceased at the juvenile, "You're not the boss of me!" stage.
Another bunch of attention-seeking nutters are the self-appointed First Amendment Auditors. I watched a video yesterday of an idiot going into a tiny Post Office in Bumfuck, Iowa, or some equivalent flyover hick town, wandering around filming absolutely nothing of consequence (although he did haltingly read out the notice on the wall saying that photography on the premises was limited and at the discretion of the Postmaster), and almost begging to be told to leave. After nearly half an hour, he was indeed told to leave by the Postmaster because he clearly had no business to conduct there and he was bothering customers, but of course he didn't. Shortly after that, the Sheriff's Deputies arrived, and then there was a barrage of nonsensical BS about his non-existent rights before he was cuffed and hauled off.
What the hell that proved is clear only to those suffering the same delusions as his.
There's no shortage of fools in every country around the world, but a combination of factors in American society seems to promote particularly stupid, nasty, belligerent world-views: Sovereign Citizens, First Amendment Auditors, QAnon believers, Moorish-Americans, countless strains of Bible thumpers, flat-earthers, Covid-denying anti-maskers and people who will fervently believe just about any conspiracy theory.
"but a combination of factors in American society seems to promote particularly stupid, nasty, belligerent world-views"
Exactly. I just ignore the non-sense, but research to determine coefficients of regression to identify these factors might give social scientists some constructive material to manage the mitigation of degenerate culture. AI for the advertising industry, for example, does well with similar problems that identify persuasive nuances that result in irrational purchasing decisions. Marketing anything to losers has always been a delicate art.
I mean the auditors are good if they're filming outside a cop station or something, because the pigs really do need to be reminded of the limitations on their power. The problem is any idiot can try it. Ive gotten out of some legitimate illegal police searches by recording what was going on and calmly continuing to state that I don't consent to a search and they don't have probable cause to do one. The key is it works when you're stopped for no reason, vs being stopped because you have a warrant and think recording the cop means he's not allowed to arrest you.
The freedom of travel thing is dumb because it is legitimate, but at the point that rule was written cars didn't exist and they've basically made it to where if yo want to drive a motor vehicle on public highways you're agreeing by default to whatever rules they want to set. That's why they can search your car if they want to but can't do the same to you as a pedestrian.
Are the rules really different for car and personal searches? My understanding is that "reasonable suspicion", or "probably cause", or some similar form of legalese is sufficient justification for either, and that's often purely a judgement call by a cop.
I have no personal experience of being searched by cops anywhere, but what I've occasionally seen in sovereign citizens videos is the idiots being obnoxious assclowns with the cops, and the cops officially detaining them for long enough for a sniffer dog to be brought in to inspect the car. My feeling is that it wasn't necessarily so much because the cops actually strongly suspected the idiot was holding, but possibly because the cops responded to his dickery by being dicks themselves and just wanted to fuck up the idiot's plans for the evening.
I do see the point of people videoing cops when they're up to shit that they shouldn't, and I think it's disgusting the police unions in the USA are so good at blocking body cams, and making sure that officers suffer no serious sanctions when the body cams mysteriously "malfunction" or are "accidentally" switched off at critical moments, and videos that put the cops in a bad light somehow get erased. There are lots of people in this world who are utter arseholes and the shit that some cops have to deal with is disgusting and highly stressful, but society depends on _everyone_ sticking to the rules, and cops should never be an exception.
Hate speech laws are a slippery slope. You might agree with having them when your political party is in power but if Trump gets back in theyll wish they hadnt supported it. Trump's opinion of what is hate speech is gonna be different from theirs. Thats why its a terrible short sighted idea.
People are absolutely insane with this
PC bullshit. Kids these days will take everything literally, having no concept of anything other than what's in front of them and social media thinking for them
Twitter banning someone isn’t a violation of their free speech. That’s a business decision to which they are entitled.
My point is, the business decision should be that EVERYONE is allowed to speak their minds. The fact that my values aren't being shared is what pisses me off.
The government has outsourced their censorship to private buisinesses and made a push to get everyone to use these social media sites instead of talking to each other in person. The government isnt limiting your free speech, but they're banning in-person gatherings to force you to use social channels that ARE allowed to limit your speech.
The question is, shall not social media be treated like a public means of communication and be subjected to 1st amendment regulations..
It’s sad. But even on platforms like this where people talk about eating other peoples shit, a mere discussion about politics turns to shit.
I know right? God forbid someone has another opinion. Censorship is a practice that isnt even effective at stopping "radicalization" since you are moving the crazy people even further down the rabbit hole because of censorship. It's the internet theres always a board for whatever you belive in.
I say let people be crazy in the sunshine. At least you know where the crazy people are. Sweeping them under the rug wont solve shit besides virtue signaling.
Inb4 the annoying, "Freedom of speech only refers to the government!" argument as if there isn't the principle of the matter or as if we're all American.
Tip: If you make that argument then the concept of "Freedom of speech" isn't meant for you, it's meant to protect people from people like you.