LS1GTO.com Forums banner

7461 - 7480 of 7725 Posts

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
Even the First Amendment has restrictions. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater for instance. Your right to say whatever you want is not more important than the safety of others is the point. It might be on the edge, but for the president to tweet and promote easily proven falsehoods could be likened to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
 

·
Here for the Gangbang
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
Even the First Amendment has restrictions. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater for instance. Your right to say whatever you want is not more important than the safety of others is the point.
Absolutely true.

It might be on the edge, but for the president to tweet and promote easily proven falsehoods could be likened to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
LESS TRUE. Or, at least, open to interpretation. People have lost sight of the nuance between 'truth' and 'fiction' through the lens of 'opinion'. By definition, no opinion is either true or false. It can be based on truth or fiction, but it in and of itself has no 'right' or 'wrong'. It's an opinion.

Our society is in trouble today - in my humble opinion - because of this unfortunate condition.

We have entire swaths of the nation who are ready to ACT, potentially lawlessly, based entirely on opinions, suppositions, and manufactured emotional response. This is not a condition new to the Trump administration or even the last several decades' of our history as a country, but it has been turned up to 11 by social media. Worse yet, entirely too many people don't see why even the phrase 'fake news' and the kneejerk reactions that have been made by corporate interests and politicians in response are fraught with peril.

Example: Facebook's algorithm for fighting 'fake news', by any measure, is an Easy Bake Oven Propaganda Machine of its own. Even if I agree with it most of the time, I can accept that I should be distrustful of it.

But this is exactly where we are as a nation. Half the country SUPPORTS [insert politically-charged noun here] BECAUSE half the country does not. It's almost paradoxical, but here it is in front of us. We've discussed it here many times.

Last week, the owner of a Fit Republic franchise posted something to social media where, in an attempt to get people amped up about a product, said something along the lines of, "if this doesn't excite you, you should consider suicide." The response from the community was immediate, as you can imagine, and other franchisees in the area put up a video declaring that this is not consistent with their brand image, etc. - and they're actively seeking to get this guy's franchise license pulled. Which, you know, is fine. Good, even. It's deleterious to their ability to conduct business, their corporate image, and their reputation in the community and pulling the guy's franchise is well within their rights as an organization.

But on social media, people were talking about having the guy arrested. People harassed the owner via text messages, through social media, calls, etc. Some even called for violence on the part of the community against the guy. Somewhere in all of that, a line was crossed.

My point? I was in a conversation where someone rationalized this via the same 'can't yell fire in a theater' concept you just referenced.
 

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
But many, such as CIC, don't make their expressions as opinion, they state them as fact with verifiable support of their statement. There is a vast difference in saying " I believe that voting by mail leads to voter fraud" and "voting by mail is voter fraud".

Much of the media do this EVERY SINGLE DAY and it drives me up the wall. Context and how you say something does matter. But few give a rats ass and even fewer understand the difference. It is mostly "if I say it, it then becomes truth".
 

·
Here for the Gangbang
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
I think we're in alignment on that point, Rich. COMPLETE alignment. Just as we're talking about in the other thread of the day, though, the response can't be worse.
 

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
I guess the thing that sticks in my ear is when Cheeto pisses and moans over Twitter's actions on his posts claiming freedom of speech should rule the day yet if a Dem were to post a tweet saying "Donnie is a draft dodger" he'd not only want that person flogged he'd want Twitter shut down for allowing it. And he wouldn't even see the hypocrisy in it. And he's not alone in such behavior of course.

I honestly don't know what the answer is other than EVERYONE needs to take a lot more personal responsibility on how they communicate. But I just don't see that happening. People are just simply stupid most of the time.

But yes, as you said the response can't be worse. How does anyone come to the thought process that that will make anything better? As was also stated, there are just a lot of opportunists using the situation to get away with stuff (literally and figuratively). But for those who want their voices heard, they should be more cognizant how their "movement" is perceived if shit goes off the rails so dramatically, as it almost always seems to, when they are trying to make a "statement" or whatever. Chose a different venue or have a method of communication you can control and chastise those who do take it off the rails. Kinda boils down to gotta give respect to get respect.
 

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
What so many fail to really grasp is that it is easy peasy to appeal to your base, it is another thing altogether to persuade those outside your base that what you have to say has some merit. And getting through to those outside your base is the real prize in all of this.
 

·
Here for the Gangbang
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
What so many fail to really grasp is that it is easy peasy to appeal to your base, it is another thing altogether to persuade those outside your base that what you have to say has some merit. And getting through to those outside your base is the real prize in all of this.
I know this will feel like bait, but did you feel this way during the previous administration?
 

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
I know this will feel like bait, but did you feel this way during the previous administration?
It is a general statement that applies to any group trying to gather numbers to their cause, so yes. If you honestly want to win the hearts and minds of a majority of the populace you can't JUST play to your base unless your base IS the majority. I don't think anyone can claim a majority of anything any more.

More specifically to your question, why have we had so many administrations with the opposition in control of the Congress? Because the administration failed to win the hearts and minds of the majority and only played to their base. That said, previous governments did find a way to compromise between the side though to get some shit done. Don't see nearly enough of that happening anymore. Rule by executive order has to go the way of the Dodo Bird.
 

·
Here for the Gangbang
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
Obama was hugely successful with ruling by fiat. Even applauded for it in certain circles. I’m sure the next Democrat to go into the White House will enjoy the same privilege.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,848 Posts
I can’t say that I disagree with anything in the EO.

There is a biiiiiiiig hang-up that is begging for a lawsuit.
It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
If Twitter, Facebook, etc. were in the business of of providing users a forum for free and open speech, then there would not be a laundry list of legalese required at sign up. As a user, who agrees to the provider's terms, your rights are subject to the whims of said provider.

Put another way, I received a "warning" from a moderator here once upon a time. My public response was, "MAH FREE SPEECHES, BIOTCH!" The response was, "Check out the Site Rules, bro."

Or, you know... Nationalize publicly-trades corporations because of bruised feels. Either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
There is a biiiiiiiig hang-up that is begging for a lawsuit.

If Twitter, Facebook, etc. were in the business of of providing users a forum for free and open speech, then there would not be a laundry list of legalese required at sign up. As a user, who agrees to the provider's terms, your rights are subject to the whims of said provider.

Put another way, I received a "warning" from a moderator here once upon a time. My public response was, "MAH FREE SPEECHES, BIOTCH!" The response was, "Check out the Site Rules, bro."

Or, you know... Nationalize publicly-trades corporations because of bruised feels. Either way.
Here's the thing though, nothing in the EO is saying that social media companies can't continue to do what they're doing. The EO is just saying that in doing so, they will forfeit the protections from civil liability that they previously enjoyed because, through their application of selective moderation, they are now content creators and subject to responsibility. It's an all-or-nothing interpretation of the law.

And you're right, this EO is definitely going to be challenged in court as soon as it's used in a liability suit. It will work its way through the courts up to SCOTUS. Honestly, until SCOTUS rules on a case and affirms or refutes this interpretation - or the original law is modified or repealed - it's pretty toothless.
 

·
Here for the Gangbang
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
There is a biiiiiiiig hang-up that is begging for a lawsuit.

If Twitter, Facebook, etc. were in the business of of providing users a forum for free and open speech, then there would not be a laundry list of legalese required at sign up. As a user, who agrees to the provider's terms, your rights are subject to the whims of said provider.

Put another way, I received a "warning" from a moderator here once upon a time. My public response was, "MAH FREE SPEECHES, BIOTCH!" The response was, "Check out the Site Rules, bro."

Or, you know... Nationalize publicly-trades corporations because of bruised feels. Either way.
One is reminded of a specific forum that shall remain nameless.
 

·
Fake bacon lover
Joined
·
11,254 Posts
Here's my thing, even if this EO is ultimately validated, he keeps handing people reasons to vote for "anyone but Trump". This isn't "small government", or a "Conservative agenda"; it's "my pen is bigger than yours" bullshit.
Can't argue with that. Some swing votes will only be able to hold their nose for so long before Trumps personal bullshit tirades become too much.

I assume it's all going to come down to which one of these jack holes makes a bigger jerk of themselves in the last few weeks of October. Thus I sure hope Biden comes on strong with the dumbassary he is clearly capable of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
Here's my thing, even if this EO is ultimately validated, he keeps handing people reasons to vote for "anyone but Trump". This isn't "small government", or a "Conservative agenda"; it's "my pen is bigger than yours" bullshit.
No arguments here. I’m no fan of EOs, even if I agree with them.
 
7461 - 7480 of 7725 Posts
Top