@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #30:
> 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?
Social Media companies like Facebook and Twitter are American under American laws.
The entire point of this discussion is the First Amendment of the US Constitution. That's why.
@potterchess said in #31:
> The entire point of this discussion is the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
No it isn't. The thread is called "freedom of expession", not "The US first amendment.".
The comis strip in the OP does clearly not mention USA either.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #32:
> No it isn't. The thread is called "freedom of expession", not "The US first amendment.".
>
> The comis strip in the OP does clearly not mention USA either.
xkcd.com/1357/The image was taken from this blog
I am including this to not get copy righted and on the blog he explains what u adress
@sdkman said in #33:
>
xkcd.com/1357/> The image was taken from this blog
> I am including this to not get copy righted and on the blog he explains what u adress
I guess he's just a troll then. It's annoying starting a debate that looks like a universal one and then it's just about USA.
@sdkman said in #33:
>
xkcd.com/1357/> The image was taken from this blog
> I am including this to not get copy righted and on the blog he explains what u adress
Also on an international forum is kinds shitty to start a debate only about one country and not telling it. Like just write "Only usa" in the OP or whatever. So you don't waste peoples time.
The American First Amendment certainly places some limitations on government action.
But ... can governments (federal, state or local) "suggest" to private companies, over whom they might have substantial practical influence (given that government generally has some power to tax and / or regulate), that it would "sure be nice" and be "helpful" to do what the government itself cannot directly do?
Would that be okay?
Isn't that the real question these days (in America, I must qualify)?
I shouldn't grab the cookies mom is saving for dessert! That would be wrong! But I guess nothing would stop me from suggesting to little brother that it would be "helpful" if some of those cookies ended up in the tree house before dinner!
All too often it seems to me that many people answer the "real question" primarily with reference to their own politics and the content of the "suggested" actions.
As usual, I could be wrong.
This is exactly the situation I’ve faced, and I’ve been wondering what to do in that situation.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #32:
> No it isn't. The thread is called "freedom of expession", not "The US first amendment.".
Indeed, the thread is called "freedom of expression", but the best representation of that in the world is the "US first amendment"
Most countries try to imitate the first amendment, but most have some kind of restriction to the language, as tiny it may be, it restritcs speech.
The air is filled lately with accusations of "authoritarianism." It's a stylish complaint, being levelled on the internet at people both on the right and on the left and in the center. And, indeed, there are authoritarians abroad in the world now, to a larger extent than in quite some time.
But what is one of the more reliable ways to spot just who is ACTUALLY "authoritarian" or otherwise predisposed to follow authoritarian policies?
Look to see who attempts to give "intellectual" support to shutting others up. Look to see who might say "how great free speech is" (oooh, like, you know, of course) -- and THEN say "BUT ....." and start explaining why it's "okay, even, like, necessary" in "this instance" to shut up opposing views.
Genuine anti-authoritarians combat stupid, hateful speech by providing reasoned alternative speech of their own. If a person is correct, he or she should trust their own arguments, and make them often and well, instead of trying to silence opposing speech.
Understand that this topic can get complicated -- and lead to discussions of prior restraint and the proper provision of, say, tortious liability for harmful defamation or deliberate deceit and fraud, or the need to prevent the unbridled dissemination of military intelligence.
But the American courts have, in past, done a pretty damned good job of recognizing the value of, and securing the wide availability of, free expression, subject to relatively few exceptions compared to the wishes of authoritarians for the control of others.
Let us hope our courts remain wise.
@Noflaps said in #39:
> The air is filled lately with accusations of "authoritarianism." It's a stylish complaint, being levelled on the internet at people both on the right and on the left and in the center. And, indeed, there are authoritarians abroad in the world now, to a larger extent than in quite some time.
>
> But what is one of the more reliable ways to spot just who is ACTUALLY "authoritarian" or otherwise predisposed to follow authoritarian policies?
> [...]
So what is Canada according to you? An authoritarian commies Political Regime?
