Punishing censorship on social media: what do you think?

[PureX]

This thread needs to be contextualized.
I want to reassure that in the United States (where anything is private, even the air people breathe), there will never be such a legislation.
I started this thread not to speak of the US, but to ask people here what they think about this bill. Which is very likely to be implemented, because there have been right-wing politicians (who have always behaved impeccably on social media) that were censored because of their political affiliation and not because of their posts (they posted very rarely, indeed on Twitter and on FB).
So...let's contextualize this thread to the Italian context. Thank you.

No one here is particularly interested in Italian politics but you. And this is in the political debate section. So we are debating commercial censorship ... the subject that you brought up.

 

[Estro Felino]

No one here is particularly interested in Italian politics but you. And this is in the political debate section. So we are debating commercial censorship ... the subject that you brought up.

You know what dictatorship is?
It's when someone wants to impose you what to believe and what not to believe.
So they need censorship (which it's like tapping a person's mouth until they stop breathing), whenever someone says something that the crowd doesn't like.

 

[wellwisher]

The clever lie will always beat the truth out of the starting blocks. The juicy gossip is more emotionally exciting compared to the matter of fact truth The lie has an advantage. It may take time for the truth to appear. If we censor too early, we will censor the truth more often, than the gossip and the lie, since the truth starts slow and cannot defend itself, early when gossip is too juicy.

The way to level the playing field is to have a statute of limitation that never ends, so as the truth takes it time to develop, the liars and illegitimate censors can eventually be brought to court and sued.

During election season, a ninth inning lie can be useful, if the truth is censored at the same time. The lie will get a head start and can wins the short race before the truth, since truth may take longer than until election day to develop; October surprise is designed this way. One example, was when Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney cheating on his taxes when he ran against Obama. This was a last inning pitch. Before Romney could show proof to counter the lie, the election was over. The liars got away with this. If we apply the no statute of limitation, Reid and the DNC could be sued by everyone who was impacted.

If you look at the Hunter Biden laptop story, the lie about Russian disinformation got out of the blocks, quickly, with the truth of the validity of laptop, censored. It took over a year for the truth be able to overcome the censorship road blocks, that had been set up to protect the lie. In the system I suggested, when the lie finally got caught, those involves have a price to pay. This will deter future scams. As long as the lie sees no punishment, scams and partisan censorship will continue. This approach protects free speech.

The next concern is, what do you do with the illegitimate election of a President, assisted by an election interference tactic, that used the Hail Mary lie and censorship? As long as the lie is rewarded at some level, and only the underlings, who did the dirty work, go to court, the real end game damage will stand. The President can pardon them, so the lie wins, again.

We may need to deal with all the fruit of the poison tree, as an extension of the censorship payback. Maybe we can have a new election. While all laws from the scam President, who benefited by the fruit of the poison tree, are made void. We erase the last two years and get back the money spent. If we do not play hardball with the top level people, who hire or strong arm the liars and censors, this will never work.

We cannot just assume any government or any one political party can be the honest arbitrator of truth. Rather we need to allow truth the time needed and then play hard ball. This will work in all occasions, even if it takes decades for the truth to surface. There is always a surprise when the ticking time bomb explodes. The shrapnel has to take out the liars/censors for all to see. We cannot protect the liars or censorship will continue.

 

[PureX]

You know what dictatorship is?
It's when someone wants to impose you what to believe and what not to believe.
So they need censorship (which it's like tapping a person's mouth until they stop breathing), whenever someone says something that the crowd doesn't like.

But the antidote is not to allow anyone to say anything they want regardless of the harm it does to others. I don't understand why you think it is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You know what dictatorship is?
It's when someone wants to impose you what to believe and what not to believe.

Erm, no, actually. Just because somebody wants and tries to make you think something does not alone make them a dictator. If there was the case, every politician (and probably every person) would be a dictator.

A dictatorship is when an individual seizes autocratic control of the state and actively reduces or removes the governmental mechanisms that could prevent them from ruling (like a democracy).

 

[Estro Felino]

But the antidote is not to allow anyone to say anything they want regardless of the harm it does to others. I don't understand why you think it is.

Who decides what's tellable and what is not?
Even if the social platform were owned by the State, and were public, they would still censor those messages that they consider dangerous for people to know.

 

[PureX]

Who decides what's tellable and what is not?
Even if the social platform were owned by the State, and were public, they would still censor those messages that they consider dangerous for people to know.

The members of every society of humans has to decide what individual freedoms will be sacrificed so that they can live together in peace and harmony. And even if they allow dictators and despots to dominate and oppress them, that too is their decision.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens decide what individual freedoms will be limited, and how much. In a representative democracy, they elect representatives to exercise their collective authority. And via that collective authority, they will make laws and see that they are enforced. You or I will not always agree with what rights our fellow citizens and our political representatives decide to limit or by how much, but that's the price we pay to live in a collective society of fellow humans.

The collective gets to decide. And we have a voice in that. But we are just one voice among many. And in the end we have to cede to the will of the collective within which we live.

Do you understand? As members of a social species, we don't get to do whatever we want.

 

[Estro Felino]

The members of every society of humans has to decide what individual freedoms will be sacrificed so that they can live together in peace and harmony. And even if they allow dictators and despots to dominate and oppress them, that too is their decision.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens decide what individual freedoms will be limited, and how much. In a representative democracy, they elect representatives to exercise their collective authority. And via that collective authority, they will make laws and see that they are enforced. You or I will not always agree with what rights our fellow citizens and our political representatives decide to limit or by how much, but that's the price we pay to live in a collective society of fellow humans.

The collective gets to decide. And we have a voice in that. But we are just one voice among many. And in the end we have to cede to the will of the collective within which we live.

Do you understand? As members of a social species, we don't get to do whatever we want.

I do understand your perspective as an American.
I am really trying to put myself into your shoes...
and I think that your view is just the reflection of a cultural mindset that originated with the Puritans and the Mayflower, then resulted into the 1776 Declaration of Independence....and so, on.

As an European, I am the result of another history. Of a completely different mindset. Voltaire, Rousseau, Vico, Kant...

In France, in Italy...the Mila Affair ( #JeSuisMila) implies that Mila has the right to express her views in any social media. Because that's what the freedom of thought here in Europe implies.
Mila affair - Wikipedia

In the US nobody would have sided with Mila, for sure.

 

[PureX]

I do understand your perspective as an American.
I am really trying to put myself into your shoes...
and I think that your view is just the reflection of a cultural mindset that originated with the Puritans and the Mayflower, then resulted into the 1776 Declaration of Independence....and so, on.

As an European, I am the result of another history. Of a completely different mindset. Voltaire, Rousseau, Vico, Kant...

In France, in Italy...the Mila Affair ( #JeSuisMila) implies that Mila has the right to express her views in any social media. Because that's what the freedom of thought here in Europe implies.
Mila affair - Wikipedia

In the US nobody would have sided with Mila, for sure.

It has nothing to do with being an American. It's about being a human. It's about having to sacrifice some of our selfishness to accommodate the needs and desires of others. Believe me when I say there are millions of Americans that don't understand this, and that hate government and their fellow citizens because they don't like them telling them what they can and can't do or say.

But despite all their childish whining and cursing and name-calling they still live in and benefit from their collective society. And to maintain that collective society they are going to have to be told there are some things they just can't do, and say. And there are laws to enforce those prohibitions and consequences for breaking them. As human beings, we live collectively, not selfishly. And all this selfish whining is just tearing us apart, and destroying the societies that support us.

These people need to grow the F up and start realizing that they are just one individual among millions. And that everyone matters. Not just them.

 

[Estro Felino]

It has nothing to do with being an American. It's about being a human. It's about having to sacrifice some of our selfishness to accommodate the needs and desires of others. Believe me when I say there are millions of Americans that don't understand this, and that hate government and their fellow citizens because they don't like them telling them what they can and can't do or say.

But despite all their childish whining and cursing and name-calling they still live in and benefit from their collective society. And to maintain that collective society they are going to have to be told there are some things they just can't do, and say. And there are laws to enforce those prohibitions and consequences for breaking them. As human beings, we live collectively, not selfishly. And all this selfish whining is just tearing us apart, and destroying the societies that support us.

These people need to grow the F up and start realizing that they are just one individual among millions. And that everyone matters. Not just them.

Yes...but I have asked you a question.
In the Mila Affair, do you agree that nobody in the US would have sided with Mila because Americans have a completely different mindset than us (French, Italians, Spanish, etc...) when it comes to freedom of speech?

 

[PureX]

Yes...but I have asked you a question.
In the Mila Affair, do you agree that nobody in the US would have sided with Mila because Americans have a completely different mindset than us (French, Italians, Spanish, etc...) when it comes to freedom of speech?

No. Americans hold all sorts of different ideas and position on any given issue. There are 330 million of us, after all.

 

[Estro Felino]

No. Americans hold all sorts of different ideas and position on any given issue. There are 330 million of us, after all.

If you explain me what the limits of freedom of speech are, with examples...I can understand what the US law says about that.

 

[PureX]

If you explain me what the limits of freedom of speech are, with examples...I can understand what the US law says about that.

I already gave you examples ... shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire (public endangerment).

Telling lies about someone to deliberately harm their ability to make a living (slander).

Falsely testifying under oath in a court of law (purgery).

To deliberately encourage violent or criminal behavior by others, toward others (hate speech).

Deliberately deceiving people to extract money.

To threaten someone's life.

These are all examples of uses of speech that have been criminalized in the U. S.,. And I very much doubt any of these examples are legal in Italy, either.

 

[Estro Felino]

I already gave you examples ... shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire (public endangerment).

Telling lies about someone to deliberately harm their ability to make a living (slander).

Falsely testifying under oath in a court of law (purgery).

To deliberately encourage violent or criminal behavior by others, toward others (hate speech).

Deliberately deceiving people to extract money.

To threaten someone's life.

These are all examples of uses of speech that have been criminalized in the U. S.,. And I very much doubt any of these examples are legal in Italy, either.

They are not allowed here, of course.

But hate speech is meant differently.
Here you can say: "I hate a specific religion." It's not hate speech.
Hate speech is whenever you express your desire to harm someone.
Religions are not someone. They are abstract concepts.

And tweeting "I am a racist and I am proud of it" is not hate speech in Italy.
Got the concept?

 

[PureX]

They are not allowed here, of course.

But hate speech is meant differently.
Here you can say: "I hate a specific religion." It's not hate speech.
Hate speech is whenever you express your desire to harm someone.
Religions are not someone. They are abstract concepts.

And tweeting "I am a racist and I am proud of it" is not hate speech in Italy.
Got the concept?

It's not hate speech here, either. But if you are employed, you can be let go if your opinions reflect badly on the company you work for. Or if it is reasonable to expect they would impede your job performance.

Speech has consequences because it does effect other people. And because it effects other people, it has to be regulated, either by ourselves, or by others, or by law.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not hate speech here, either. But if you are employed, you can be let go if your opinions reflect badly on the company you work for. Or if it is reasonable to expect they would impede your job performance.

Speech has consequences because it does effect other people. And because it effects other people, it has to be regulated, either by ourselves, or by others, or by law.

That's the difference here.
You cannot dismiss an employee for exercising their legitimate freedom of thought, via article 21 of the Constitution.
Or rather, you can dismiss them, but you will have to compensate them properly (and I am speaking of thousands of euros).,
Can you see the difference between us and you, now?

 

[PureX]

That's the difference here.
You cannot dismiss an employee for exercising their legitimate freedom of thought, via article 21 of the Constitution.
Or rather, you can dismiss them, but you will have to compensate them properly (and I am speaking of thousands of euros).,
Can you see the difference between us and you, now?

I doubt the practical application of your claim. How do you prove the employer dismissed someone for their opinions? Or, what if their opinions do legitimately harm the business they work for? Hasn't the employer the right to protect his business and the livelihood of his other employees from such harm?

I think you're make-believing a difference that doesn't actually exist.

 

[Estro Felino]

I doubt the practical application of your claim. How do you prove the employer dismissed someone for their opinions? Or, what if their opinions do legitimately harm the business they work for? Hasn't the employer the right to protect his business and the livelihood of his other employees from such harm?

I think you're make-believing a difference that doesn't actually exist.

Because you have to motivate your dismissal, in a written form...when you are an employer.
Here.

Here Roseanne Barr would have never been dismissed.
Never. It's illegal.
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC (Published 2018)

 

[PureX]

Because you have to motivate your dismissal, in a written form...when you are an employer.
Here.

Here Roseanne Barr would have never been dismissed.
Never. It's illegal.
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC (Published 2018)

You didn't answer the question. What if Rosanne Barr's public comments cause the show's ratings to drop significantly, harming the network and everyone else working on the show? And do the show owners have to wait until they drop, to act? Or can it be reasonably anticipated?

Don't the show owners have a right to protect their business operation from the negative effects of Rosanne's public comments, in Italy? My guess is that they do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here Roseanne Barr would have never been dismissed.
Never. It's illegal.
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC (Published 2018)

This just simply isn't true. An employer can still fire someone if it is believed they have done or said something that would significantly harm their employer. That still happens.