whenever a person says something offensive or annoying they would start talking about freedom of expression and that people should let them insult them without saying a thing
The lamest Feiffer ever.
It doesn't work properly if people agree with you. Essentially, you can offend or annoy anyone unless someone want and is capable to make you quiet. That doesn't mean it is a good thing to do though.
Yeah, that's generally the case. They aren't in their true senses when they retaliate to freedom of speech debate when suddenly they think many people are opposing their views. Common on social media nowadays.
Actually, the comic is misleading. Constitutional Rights aren't simply things the government cannot restrict. One example is the debate about whether social media platforms are "public forums" or "publishers".
If they are public forums, then law abiding users should not be denied access for expressing political opinions. It would be like denying someone access to speaking in the town public square. If they are publishers, they are responsible for everything on their platform and are under no obligation to allow political speech, or freedom of the press on their site.
The problem is that social media platforms enjoy the freedom afforded to "public forums" yet still have done things like banning politicians for expressing political views, thereby interfering with elections in the process, banning users for their opinions and so on. Rights do not simply relate to how the US government interacts with citizens, it's more complex.
If they are public forums, then law abiding users should not be denied access for expressing political opinions. It would be like denying someone access to speaking in the town public square. If they are publishers, they are responsible for everything on their platform and are under no obligation to allow political speech, or freedom of the press on their site.
The problem is that social media platforms enjoy the freedom afforded to "public forums" yet still have done things like banning politicians for expressing political views, thereby interfering with elections in the process, banning users for their opinions and so on. Rights do not simply relate to how the US government interacts with citizens, it's more complex.
Freedom of speech has benefits and consequences.
One of the consequences is that you defame yourself if you cross the respect/civil line, or that a particular group might do it for you.
But as stated above, it is true, online platforms are granted the rights to ban everyone they want as private forums/property, but are masked as public forums. And that is not the problem. The problem is that they have no liability for unjustified banning on "a public forum" because they are private.
Social media are not public forums, they are just masked as public, but they are not. And the former twitter is the prime example of that.
One of the consequences is that you defame yourself if you cross the respect/civil line, or that a particular group might do it for you.
But as stated above, it is true, online platforms are granted the rights to ban everyone they want as private forums/property, but are masked as public forums. And that is not the problem. The problem is that they have no liability for unjustified banning on "a public forum" because they are private.
Social media are not public forums, they are just masked as public, but they are not. And the former twitter is the prime example of that.
It's a shame that common sense doesn't prevail. :).
@Alientcp said in #6:
> Social media are not public forums, they are just masked as public, but they are not. And the former twitter is the prime example of that.
Exactly! If one is willing to replace the "public square" by medias which are owned by private companies whose main purpose is to make profit, then one shouldn't complain of the consequences on "freedom of speech", propaganda, and the political life.
> Social media are not public forums, they are just masked as public, but they are not. And the former twitter is the prime example of that.
Exactly! If one is willing to replace the "public square" by medias which are owned by private companies whose main purpose is to make profit, then one shouldn't complain of the consequences on "freedom of speech", propaganda, and the political life.
@Mrchess78 said in #7:
> It's a shame that common sense doesn't prevail. :).
Everyone agrees on that ;)
> It's a shame that common sense doesn't prevail. :).
Everyone agrees on that ;)
It's a shame that common sense doesn't prevail. :). @thence said in #9:
> Everyone agrees on that ;)
If only !. :). lol
> Everyone agrees on that ;)
If only !. :). lol
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.