Freedoom of expression

@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #12:
> They're obviously publishers.

Technically they are and arent. Depending on the situation, they take the position that better suits them.
If you get silenced in a public forum, there are consequences to the one silencing you. But the online forums dont have that liability.

On the other hand, if a user shares something illegal, say a pedo video or among the lines, they act as a public forum they disassociate from the video and face no consequence for the video being shared in their platform, as they should be liable for all the content in their platform as a private forum.@ed01106 said in #17:

> You don't have a constitutional right to claim forest fires are caused by jewish space lasers, spread misinformation about masks during a pandemic or fabricate lies about the election.

Actually you do. You are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont call for action or threaten to take action yourself.

>The only way freedom of expression can truly work is if the receivers are willing to listen.
Not really, you may have unpopular speech and no one would be willing to hear you.
However, regardless if you are able to amass a public or not, what makes freedom of expression work is that no one can stop you from expressing whatever you are talking about (at least not without legal liability for the one stopping you).

Steven Crowder and a few other channels had Issues related to this a while ago.
Youtube said he violated guidelines and they demonetized him, and took down his channel. Yet, they never specified which guideline he violated, they never gave proof.

The problem is that he leans right, while Youtube leans left, it looked like they wanted to silence all the right leaning channels they could, specially those who talked about politics, i think he sued youtube.

Didnt followed the story, but he moved out of youtube and also out of the Ben Shappiro company and started his own platform. He got his channel back, but he mostly post recaps of his main platform and its not as active as before, or maybe I dont watch youtube that much anymore and I dont see his videos popping out.

@Neco_Arc_Lurking said in #14:
> What an unbelievably pretentious comic.

The pretentiousness is more in your head than in the comic.

> Please bring this "holier than thou" mindset somewhere else. Funny how the same people who preach these messages are also the most intolerant people on the planet.

Funny how you exactly know what the author is up to despite obviously never having heard of him.
xkcd.com/1357/

> It's not that they are showing you the door - it's more like they are shoving you through it. Then, placing locks upon locks upon the door.

Looks like you are arguing for denying a forum host or a blog host the right to ban someone if he is behaving like an a-hole.

> Then calling the police to arrest you for having an opinion.

You are reading a lot of things into the comic that aren't there. May I ask you if by any coincidence you have been kicked out of a forum or a blog lately?

Here's a top tip for you: If you want to voice an opinion that others don't want to hear just go to wordpress or any other blog platform and create a blog of your own. In it you can scream your lungs out with any BS that you think the world needs to know.

@potterchess said in #19:
> When a whistle-blower passes leaked documents to a journalist, who then publish some of those documents on Social Media, these 'public forums' aren't responsible for navigating the legality. They aren't responsible for the content, therefore they are not "obviously publishers."

They're not publishers in the same sense as a newspaper company. Because the tech is different.

TV-Stations and radiostations also have always been allowed to put random people on live, and the station would not be liable for whatever the person said in an interview. I've at least never heard about a TV-Station getting fined for what a guest said on a show.

> When a whistle-blower passes leaked documents to a journalist, who then publish some of those documents on Social Media, these 'public forums' aren't responsible for navigating the legality. They aren't responsible for the content, therefore they are not "obviously publishers." If they want to enjoy the benefits of being a public forum, they should probably act like one. If not, they are legally responsible for every post.

Newspapers also do that.

Further back in time when various countries had laws that made it illegal to do movies with nudity or various other content, it never was the movie company that got in trouble either. At least not in Western conuntry like Italy or France.

Kubricks "Clockwork Orange" was banned for decades in many countries for instance. But Warner Brothers, the company behind the movie, didn't get attacked for it anywhere AFAIK.

@Alientcp said in #21:
> Technically they are and arent. Depending on the situation, they take the position that better suits them.
> If you get silenced in a public forum, there are consequences to the one silencing you. But the online forums dont have that liability.

Just because they'e private companies they cannot be public.

A public forum does not have a private owner.

> Youtube said he violated guidelines and they demonetized him, and took down his channel. Yet, they never specified which guideline he violated, they never gave proof.

Like I said, the problem of the internet just being like 5 mega-sites are so obvious I can't have any sympathy for people complaining about them.

Internet users decided themselves to leave all the smaller sites and flock to the mega sites. Even though the mega sites are in many ways worse. So yeah, if you want to just have 5 megasites, then you get just 5 megasites.

its 'OK' to talk and have an opinion. In the US, hate speech is protected by the Constitution. I have heard a lot of "turn Gaza into glass", "starve them out!", "cut of the electricity and water" ala Leningrad (a war crime vs civilians). Do you support the right of people to say these hateful things about Gaza? Then you support hate speech! Then you must support the other side to do the same. After all, have you ever changed your opinion in your life? Have you ever been wrong? Are you always right? Do you always have ALL the information before making an opinion, not just what the MSM spoon fed you.

@hardbitten said in #25:
> its 'OK' to talk and have an opinion. In the US, hate speech is protected by the Constitution. I have heard a lot of "turn Gaza into glass", "starve them out!", "cut of the electricity and water" ala Leningrad (a war crime vs civilians). Do you support the right of people to say these hateful things about Gaza? Then you support hate speech! Then you must support the other side to do the same. After all, have you ever changed your opinion in your life? Have you ever been wrong? Are you always right? Do you always have ALL the information before making an opinion, not just what the MSM spoon fed you.

Who are you talking to?

@hardbitten said in #25:
> its 'OK' to talk and have an opinion. In the US, hate speech is protected by the Constitution. I have heard a lot of "turn Gaza into glass", "starve them out!", "cut of the electricity and water" ala Leningrad (a war crime vs civilians). Do you support the right of people to say these hateful things about Gaza? Then you support hate speech! Then you must support the other side to do the same. After all, have you ever changed your opinion in your life? Have you ever been wrong? Are you always right? Do you always have ALL the information before making an opinion, not just what the MSM spoon fed you.

Yes the constitution protects this kind of speech. But an entity like twitter, or trumps fake twitter or the lichess forum can ban it from their platform.

And when did not supplying the enemy become a war crime? Hamas the government of Gaza has launched a war against Israel. The Nazis committed many war crimes during WWII, the siege of Lennigrad wasn’t even mentioned at Nuerenburg and is only considered a war crime by very few today historians and then only because of the resulting mass starvation. It would take months of a complete blockade off food for mass starvation to begin.

Sick and tired of reading some whining they're victims who lost their freedom of effing speech/expression while actually *** here and in medias *** many are calling for flattening and *** complete destruction *** of Gaza.

It means killing more than 2 millions of citizens of Gazza.

No consequence for them. That's calling for genocide. Period

@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #23:
> They're not publishers in the same sense as a newspaper company. Because the tech is different.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. "Public Forum" is a legal distinction, as is "Publisher."

There was previously a legal case which ruled that President Trump's Twitter account was a "Public Forum" because he used it in an official capacity, so it fell under the First Amendment protections. The case was "Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018)". It ruled that the Presidents Twitter account was a public forum and therefore blocking his annoying political opponents actually violated Constitutional protected 1st Amendment rights.

Ironically, since the court ruled that President Trump’s Twitter feed constitutes a designated public forum, this implies that when Twitter banned that same account that they were violating all kinds of First Amendment protections (both of the general public and Trump himself as a representative in the US Government). So Trump should have immediately sued Twitter under the exact same reasoning as in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, since it was a Public Forum.

So when I say Social Media is considered a "Public Forum" I mean I have legal reasons to do so.

Now that you know that, please don't @ me. I'm done explaining it. Thanks.

@potterchess said in #29:
> I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. "Public Forum" is a legal distinction, as is "Publisher."
>
> There was previously a legal case which ruled that President Trump's Twitter account was a "Public Forum" because he used it in an official capacity, so it fell under the First Amendment protections. The case was "Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018)". It ruled that the Presidents Twitter account was a public forum and therefore blocking his annoying political opponents actually violated Constitutional protected 1st Amendment rights.
>
> Ironically, since the court ruled that President Trump’s Twitter feed constitutes a designated public forum, this implies that when Twitter banned that same account that they were violating all kinds of First Amendment protections (both of the general public and Trump himself as a representative in the US Government). So Trump should have immediately sued Twitter under the exact same reasoning as in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, since it was a Public Forum.
>
> So when I say Social Media is considered a "Public Forum" I mean I have legal reasons to do so.
>
> Now that you know that, please don't @ me. I'm done explaining it. Thanks.

I'm not American so why would I think about US laws?

I find it so strange Americans always think all discussion are about USA. Like, how hard can it be to learn the world is bigger?