It is a question. You gave your answer. Thank you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is freedom of speech?
- Thread starter Dan From Smithville
- Start date
I started on usenet in the alt.binaries. A lot of discussion took place, but it was mainly governed by those discussing and didn't prevent trolls from trying to start fights to get attention. There was a participant of some renown for doing just that. He would cut in out of no where and start trouble.
Despite that, I rather enjoyed chatting about agriculture, biology and science with participants from all over the world. I don't recall any moderating, but it has been so long and at the time, did not involve myself in anything that would have needed it.
You seemed to have a problem with Lauren Southern being denied entry into the UK. I'd just like to know what your problem is.
Nope. You somehow incorrectly perceived or inferred that I have a problem with Lauren Southern being denied entry into the UK based on...what?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Ensuring freedom. On that ground.
So you see "freedom" in denying the owners of Twitter the freedom to run their business as they see fit?
I inferred it from the fact that you complained about it, but if you don't object to her being denied entry, then we're good.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There is no owner. It's a publicly traded enterprise.
Musk runs it, but he cannot claim it as his own.
Nope. I made an observation, not a complaint.
But the real issue is that many would like to censor even the most respectful and polite statements, just because they are "not in line" with their vision of the world.
Since this is about Twitter, I am speaking of what in Italy we call "the dictatorship of the exclusive thought", which would censor any statement that contradicts this exclusive way of thinking.
No matter how respectful and polite it is.
It is not the form. It is the content that makes the dictatorial movement react.
Last edited:
Do you think, rather than repressing certain thoughts/views, demanding less offensive speech would be a happy middle ground?
I'm not talking keeping back all views that would hurt someone's feelings. I'm saying holding people liable when they say things that are clearly meant to belittle, hurt, terrorize, etc.
The OP clearly refers to disinformation on social media (Twitter for example).
It is a given that freedom of speech implies statements must always be polite and respectful.
But I am not speaking of the form. I am speaking of the content.
Do you believe that what is supposedly disinformation (according to exclusively one side) is necessarily to be censored? Even if it is expressed in the most respectful way?
Last edited:
One complaint that I've noticed rather frequently is that there are different standards applied to different people or groups. If the same standards were used and applied to everyone fairly, equally, and consistently, then there may not be as much hullaballoo over it.
Me? Personally? I'm against verbal censorship in general. If someone believes in something that is considered 'disinformation', that's fine. They should be free to state it. They don't consider it disinformation, and they want to talk about the world as they experience it. If they can do so without threatening, insulting, or otherwise being harmful to the general populace, go for it.
On a social media platform, though? Its a privately owned entity. People have the right to do with their belongings(and yes, I consider social media in this sense a belonging/piece of property). I think one has to follow the rules of the business they're utilizing. I really hate shoes. Really. I still choose to wear them when I'm in the grocery store, lest they refuse me their business. If someone really wants to use a social media platform, they should abide by those rules, or choose to use another one that fits their views better.
I don't think social media is a right. Honestly, I think we're way too dependent on it. The fact that we feel silenced when we're not allowed to use it the way we prefer kind of drives that point home in my mind. So what if I can't say the moon is made of cheese on Twitter(just a silly example). Perhaps I find a new media outlet that lets me not only say it, but discuss whether its gouda or swiss...
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Because having freedom doesn't mean being free from the consequences. And as libel and slander does tend to involve maliciously harming another, it's not much different than normal recourse for civil disputes where one party has caused damages upon the other party.
This is 100% understandable
But...referring to Elon Musk's Twitter, he is being criticized because he is "too tolerant" towards some statements that some (not everyone) consider to be "disinformation".
So I guess tolerance is the keyword here.
1) there are people who want others to express their views on Twitter, even if they strongly disagree with these.
2) and there are people who don't want others to express their views on Twitter, unless they are line with their own vision of the world.
This is 100% understandable
But...referring to Elon Musk's Twitter, he is being criticized because he is "too tolerant" towards some statements that some (not everyone) consider to be "disinformation".
So I guess tolerance is the keyword here.
1) there are people who want others to express their views on Twitter, even if they strongly disagree with these.
2) and there are people who don't want others to express their views on Twitter, unless they are line with their own vision of the world.
If Twitter belongs to Musk, its his to allow, or disallow what he wants, in my view. (What I know about Musk could probably fit on the head of a pin, so there's no personal input from me on him.)
If people don't agree with it, they're welcome to find a new media outlet(I've never utilized Twitter, and still don't fully comprehend what its purpose is).
There will always be folks out there(of all political/religious views) that want the world to conform to their view of it... its a losing battle.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Stockholders are the owners. "Publicly traded" means that it is a private corporation that allows anyone to buy a share in the ownership. The board of director represents the stockholders, and often are the major stockholders of the company.
It appears that his intent is to turn it into a private company, which will not have 'public' shareholders.
I think it is always rightful that such an important company is owned by a person from the Western world who has been brought up to guarantee a certain level of freedom speech. As Musk is. Instead of billionaires from a big portion of the globe, from Russia, where freedom of speech is practically non-existent.
Last edited: