The new Twitter (X): Elon Musk and Freedom of Speech

[Stevicus]

Roseanne Barr tweeted that thing...and she was fired by ABC.
She was home.
She wasn't acting in her show....

Yes, although she's a public figure and ABC has a reputation to uphold. If they didn't fire her, people might boycott ABC and they would lose revenue. Of course, public opinion is also a factor. If the majority of people agreed with her, then firing her may backfire.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, although she's a public figure and ABC has a reputation to uphold. If they didn't fire her, people might boycott ABC and they would lose revenue. Of course, public opinion is also a factor. If the majority of people agreed with her, then firing her may backfire.

Our TV is filled with political incorrectness.
You can't even imagine how far they go.
Of course nobody can be removed just for expressing an opinion...


But I do understand the cultural framework that leads to certain decisions.

 

[Secret Chief]

In my country there's so much tolerance.
I will just say that.

People are more relaxed...they couldn't care less what others think or say.
They don't take life that seriously. And live better.

As ever your claim to speak for 59 million people is impressive. I'm pretty sure there's at least one of those 59 million who cares what others think or say. Oh wait, you care what others (on this forum) say. And I'm equally sure there's at least one of those 59 million who takes life seriously.

 

[Stevicus]

Our TV is filled with political incorrectness.
You can't even imagine how far they go.
Of course nobody can be removed just for expressing an opinion...


But I do understand the cultural framework that leads to certain decisions.

Actually, I believe she made a statement denying the Holocaust, which is a crime in Italy, but not in the United States. However, just because it's not a crime doesn't mean you can't get fired for saying it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually, I believe she made a statement denying the Holocaust, which is a crime in Italy, but not in the United States. However, just because it's not a crime doesn't mean you can't get fired for saying it.

No, I am speaking of that famous tweet.
She was speaking of Valerie Jarrett in the context of a Julian Assange discussion.

Also...Assange's case shows how there's no freedom of press either...in America.

 

[McBell]

I don't oppose anything. I am for absolute freedom of speech.
We are all entitled to our opinions.

Which is interesting given you completely change your tune here:

I would allow any political opinion.
Yes.

If people come to express their political opinion, kindly and respectfully....they're welcome.

What you mentioned are not political opinions. Porn, etc... is not a political opinion.

 

[Estro Felino]

Which is interesting given you completely change your tune here:

What is freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech is the freedom to express one's own opinions. Period.
We all have opinions.

Do you have another definition?

 

[McBell]

What is freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech is the freedom to express one's own opinions. Period.
We all have opinions.

Do you have another definition?

"Absolute Freedom of Speech" means that one can say anything they want anywhere, anytime.

This is what you claimed(post#43) you are for...

Then you turn right around and start putting limits on it(post#45)...

 

[Estro Felino]

"Absolute Freedom of Speech" means that one can say anything they want anywhere, anytime.

This is what you claimed(post#43) you are for...

Then you turn right around and start putting limits on it(post#45)...

I see you're new,
Nice.
I hope to see your posts more often.

As I was saying... it's all about the definition of free speech. Speech, thought is about personal opinions.

 

[McBell]

I see you're new,
Nice.
I hope to see your posts more often.

As I was saying... it's all about the definition of free speech. Speech, thought is about personal opinions.

Are you honestly saying that every one should never be held accountable for anything they say?

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

In my country there's so much tolerance.

No there isn't. LOL Not if we're talking about some of your country's laws.

Article 278 of your Italian Penal Code makes it a criminal offense to insult or offend "the honor and prestige" of the President of Italy. The penalty is imprisonment from one to five years.

Here in the U.S., insulting or offending our U.S. President (and other political leaders) is a national pastime. It's one of our most cherished expressions of free speech because the Constitutional term "freedom of speech" refers to the government not being able to penalize you for the things that you say. Some restrictions apply, however, as there is no First Amendment protection against illegal activities such as libel, child pornography, false advertising, and intellectual property violations (copyrights and patents violations).

Article 403 of your Penal Code (dealing with Criminal Blasphemy) makes it a criminal offense to publicly insult a religion by expressing contempt for those who profess it. The punishment is a fine ranging from €1,000 to €5,000. If you express public contempt for a minister, you can be fined up to €6,000. Article 404 additionally makes it a criminal offense to insult objects of worship in a public place, with fines ranging from €1,000 to €5,000.

Here in the U.S., insulting a religion is not a criminal offense subject to a government imposed penalty. It may be only an offense in certain social circles, which leads us to another very important freedom here in the U.S.:

Here in the U.S., private citizens have the right to set their own terms of association with others -- which can take the form of establishing rules of conduct on various social media platforms that they own and administer (including discussion forums like this one), none of which are bound by the Constitution's First Amendment. That's an important freedom we have here that some Constitutionally-challenged, self-entitled, immature people, vexed by the thought of having to face any sort of consequences for the stupid **** they say and do, want to see eliminated.

Your hero, Elon Musk (feh!) has set his rules of deportment on his own social media platform, Twitter/X. The government can't make him moderate his platform the way a lot of people would like to see him do. But that's his right. Just as it's the right of advertisers and decent people to shun him.

 

[Estro Felino]

Are you honestly saying that every one should never be held accountable for anything they say?

If they are political opinions, expressed in a very polite way...they should never be held accountable.

 

[Estro Felino]

No there isn't. LOL Not if we're talking about some of your country's laws.

Article 278 of your Italian Penal Code makes it a criminal offense to insult or offend "the honor and prestige" of the President of Italy. The penalty is imprisonment from one to five years.

Here in the U.S., insulting or offending our U.S. President (and other political leaders) is a national pastime. It's one of our most cherished expressions of free speech because the Constitutional term "freedom of speech" refers to the government not being able to penalize you for the things that you say. Some restrictions apply, however, as there is no First Amendment protection against illegal activities such as libel, child pornography, false advertising, and intellectual property violations (copyrights and patents violations).

Article 403 of your Penal Code (dealing with Criminal Blasphemy) makes it a criminal offense to publicly insult a religion by expressing contempt for those who profess it. The punishment is a fine ranging from €1,000 to €5,000. If you express public contempt for a minister, you can be fined up to €6,000. Article 404 additionally makes it a criminal offense to insult objects of worship in a public place, with fines ranging from €1,000 to €5,000.

Here in the U.S., insulting a religion is not a criminal offense subject to a government imposed penalty. It may be only an offense in certain social circles, which leads us to another very important freedom here in the U.S.:

Here in the U.S., private citizens have the right to set their own terms of association with others -- which can take the form of establishing rules of conduct on various social media platforms that they own and administer (including discussion forums like this one), none of which are bound by the Constitution's First Amendment. That's an important freedom we have here that some Constitutionally-challenged, self-entitled, immature people, vexed by the thought of having to face any sort of consequences for the stupid **** they say and do, want to see eliminated.

Your hero, Elon Musk (feh!) has set his rules of deportment on his own social media platform, Twitter/X. The government can't make him moderate his platform the way a lot of people would like to see him do. But that's his right. Just as it's the right of advertisers and decent people to shun him.

I guess you are misreading and misinterpreting Italian laws.
You can criticize any religion in Italy. You can say that Christianity is a bunch of nonsense and that Catholicism is idolatry and pure paganism. You can say that the Vatican is corrupt, you can say anything about any religion.
There is the article 21 of the Constitution that protects you even at workplace. That is, your employer can never dismiss you for saying bad things about the Vatican.
So article 21 protects citizens from intolerant people who want to censor anyone. The First Amendment in the US doesn't protect you from intolerant and merciless employers.

As for the blasphemy laws, they rarely apply. You need to be incredibly vulgar towards a deity...and by the way, many jurists, me included are fighting to remove these law from the Penal Code...they are a residual useless element of Fascism.
But, as I said, you can say whatever you like about religions. Religions are not people, so they have zero feelings.



And by the way, since we had in our history bad experience with Nazi-Fascism, we do fight Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial.
In Germany, as well. These two countries don't want history to repeat itself.
You should appreciate that.

 

[Estro Felino]

Here in the U.S., private citizens have the right to set their own terms of association with others -- which can take the form of establishing rules of conduct on various social media platforms that they own and administer (including discussion forums like this one), none of which are bound by the Constitution's First Amendment. That's an important freedom we have here that some Constitutionally-challenged, self-entitled, immature people, vexed by the thought of having to face any sort of consequences for the stupid **** they say and do, want to see eliminated.

Dear Rachel, censoring the people you simply disagree with on social media, even if they are respectful and kind, is not freedom of speech.
It's intolerance.
It's the upheaval of Voltaire's sentence:

 

[Estro Felino]

Ditto

 

[Estro Felino]

Voltaire wrote the Traité sur la Tolerance...
because he fought la pensée unique.

 

[Stevicus]

No, I am speaking of that famous tweet.
She was speaking of Valerie Jarrett in the context of a Julian Assange discussion.

Also...Assange's case shows how there's no freedom of press either...in America.

Oh, yes, now I remember. It does happen. I still remember when Jimmy the Greek got fired, and his statements were relatively mild compared to what Barr said. Even as far back as the 70s, Anita Bryant got canned as the spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice for her bigoted statements.

It's not so much that they're being fired for what they said. It's that, because of what they said, their image has become tainted among a significant portion of their fanbase, who are also, in effect, their customers. In the entertainment industry, it can mean one is no longer a viable commodity.

From a business standpoint, they can say it was "strictly business" and not personal. And there may very well be some truth to that. Could the executives who fired them be just as bigoted as the ones they fired, except they're not so dumb as to shoot off their mouths like that? So, it could just as easily be argued they were fired for being stupid.

As for Assange, I don't see that he did anything wrong by releasing information that certain governments didn't want to be seen. Journalists often do things that governments don't like. Nixon had a thing about the Washington Post, and I heard he threw a hissy fit when the Pentagon Papers story broke. He went on some vendetta against Ellsberg, just as there appears to be a vendetta against Assange.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I guess you are misreading and misinterpreting Italian laws.
You can criticize any religion in Italy. You can say that Christianity is a bunch of nonsense and that Catholicism is idolatry and pure paganism. You can say that the Vatican is corrupt, you can say anything about any religion.
There is the article 21 of the Constitution that protects you even at workplace. That is, your employer can never dismiss you for saying bad things about the Vatican.
So article 21 protects citizens from intolerant people who want to censor anyone. The First Amendment in the US doesn't protect you from intolerant and merciless employers.

As for the blasphemy laws, they rarely apply. You need to be incredibly vulgar towards a deity...and by the way, many jurists, me included are fighting to remove these law from the Penal Code...they are a residual useless element of Fascism.
But, as I said, you can say whatever you like about religions. Religions are not people, so they have zero feelings.

Thank you. I guess I stand corrected on Italy's blasphemy laws. Although this site appears to say otherwise:

Italy | Defamation Laws

legaldb.freemedia.at

And by the way, since we had in your history bad experience with Nazi-Fascism, we do fight Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial.
In Germany, as well. These two countries don't want history to repeat itself.
You should appreciate that.

I was already aware of Germany's efforts to ensure that history does not repeat itself, as @Heyo keeps us updated.

Is there such a thing in the US?

The U.S. government does not police people's speech when it comes to Holocaust denial. However, I believe that the majority of private citizens are decent, sane individuals who find Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi activities to be abhorrent, and will generally make their distaste known by exercising their right to disassociate themselves from such people.

By the way, that quote that you are fond of using did not come from Voltaire. It came from English writer Beatrice Hall (writing under the pseudonym of S.G. Tallentyre) in her biography The Life of Voltaire (1903). Those were actually Hall's own words, which she used for her portrayal of Voltaire.

For myself, I would not seek to initiate any legislation curtailing anyone's freedom of speech. However, there are other things that I will defend to the death (such as human rights and personal property rights) before I will ever defend a Nazi screed.

Edited to add: That tweet of Elon Musk's that you just posted does not impress me. Actions speak louder than words, and Musk's words often ring hollow due to his hypocrisy.

 

[Estro Felino]

Oh, yes, now I remember. It does happen. I still remember when Jimmy the Greek got fired, and his statements were relatively mild compared to what Barr said. Even as far back as the 70s, Anita Bryant got canned as the spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice for her bigoted statements.

It's not so much that they're being fired for what they said. It's that, because of what they said, their image has become tainted among a significant portion of their fanbase, who are also, in effect, their customers. In the entertainment industry, it can mean one is no longer a viable commodity.

From a business standpoint, they can say it was "strictly business" and not personal. And there may very well be some truth to that. Could the executives who fired them be just as bigoted as the ones they fired, except they're not so dumb as to shoot off their mouths like that? So, it could just as easily be argued they were fired for being stupid.

I consider Roseanne as a personal hero. I feel an incredibly strong empathy towards her.
I consider her a very intelligent person. Also, in my country, being outspoken is synonym with intelligence.
On the countrary, I believe she was dismissed because she said things that irritated Mr. Hussein Obama, and Jarrett, of course.
It has nothing to do with racism.

As for Assange, I don't see that he did anything wrong by releasing information that certain governments didn't want to be seen. Journalists often do things that governments don't like. Nixon had a thing about the Washington Post, and I heard he threw a hissy fit when the Pentagon Papers story broke. He went on some vendetta against Ellsberg, just as there appears to be a vendetta against Assange.

It's not freedom of press, this.
This means that governments can do the most unspeakable things behind the citizens' back and nobody should dare expose these things.
They should stop it with the Assange thing...I guess.
It would be self-detrimental.

 

[McBell]

If they are political opinions, expressed in a very polite way...they should never be held accountable.

So you are in fact not for "absolute freedom of speech"....