Politics
In Arizona, a State Senator tweeted after the Buffalo incident:
"Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo"
A 24-3 vote has opened an ethics investigation. One of the people who voted against commented that her tweet was an embarrassment but she had every right to make it under the First Amendment.
Was he right?I think it is possible the state senator will pay a price with her voting base for such a comment. She is free to say such a thing, but she is not free from the consequences of her constituent's reaction to it.
Yes, I believe you are right. However, we might find that a considerable number of her constituents will back her comment.
Monday morning, though, she tweeted that she “of course” condemned the violence in Buffalo.
“I also condemn the #FakeNews and the government promoting violence and then blaming it on regular patriotic Americans as if regular Americans share those despicable views. Everything is not what it seems!”
A growing section of America is absolutely enthralled with conspiracy theory. They are increasingly more wild and dangerous. The Great Replacement Theory garbage spewed by this woman along with MANY Republicans and Fox News was the basis for the Buffalo shooting. They have essentially dug this hate out of the darkest corners of the internet and brought it to light to mainstream America. Tucker Carlson has pushed the theory over 400 times on his show. Yep, you better believe she's got support."The Great Replacement Theory garbage spewed by this woman along with MANY Republicans and Fox News was the basis for the Buffalo shooting. "
Ho hum, here we go again, same old script. Everybody is to blame except the shooter.
So, I guess the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot Republican congressman was a result of MSNBC and left spewing hatred for Republicans? That's the case using your logic. Maybe he was motivated by Maxine Waters and the hate that she spews forth about Republicans.
Darrell Brooks who plowed into a Christmas celebration in Wisconsin, in your view, could have been inspired by all the hate spewed forth by Black Lives Matter and the left media to kill white people. He killed 5 people and injured 60 including 8 children. Isn't that the case using your logic? Brooks constantly posted things about the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, so I guess using your logic Kyle Rittenhouse is responsible. Oh, he also posted many bad things about Derek Chauvin, so I guess, using your logic Derek Chauvin is also responsible.
Lets forget this brooks was a convicted sex offender and had a long arrest record. Using your logic it's not him, it what he heard on the media that is responsible.
Sorry, Fox news, MSNBC, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Tucker Carlson, etc., and all elected officials are not responsible for a person's behavior.
THE CRIMINALS alone are responsible for what they did and nobody else.
Trying to spread around the blame in this situation seems pretty pathetic to me.I'm not trying to absolve him of blame or relieve him of responsibility. He is ultimately responsible for his actions. But there is absolutely no doubt after reading his manifesto online that this boy was radicalized, online overtime. The document demonstrates a very clear trajectory from radicalization online to violence and extremism. He was a consumer of hate propaganda And a believer in replacement theory. That's very clear.
Online hate often turns into real life violence. That's a fact. This boy was a regular of 4 Chan and 8 Chan. Do you believe sites such as those contribute in any positive manner to society? As long as we let these sites thrive, violence will continue.
Heck, clips of his live stream are currently circulating on Twitter. Why do we give oxygen to this? Who will be inspired by this boy as a result?
This boy Left us a clear roadmap of his path to Buffalo. The question is, what are we going to do with it? What solutions will come from this? Are citizens in even interested in a solution or would they just rather use it as a political fodder as usual?Same could be said of Darrell Brooks, or the Congressional shooter Eugene Simpson, or even Micah Xavier Johnson who ambushed white Dallas police officers and killed five of them.
I wonder what role CRT played in their actions? Did those Dallas police officers die because of the views of BLM?
FYI...white replacement theory has been around for decades. It was popularized by Hitler.
So, what's your solution? Government control of information?Yes I understand replacement theory has been around for a very long time. The internet makes it and other types of hate spread more quickly and reach far more than it ever did.
If we don't address the groups and the people who radicalize others then we are simply letting it spread. We already have more than enough research to show us that these online hate based forums often leads to violence. Many of them outright encourage violence. If we do nothing to combat it, we had better accept the fact that these types of shootings and other violence will continue. I suppose those will simply be the cost of maintaining the high minded ideal of "free speech".
I really don't grasp the idea that we should maintain free speech at all costs especially when the outcomes are so clearly detrimental. What purpose does it serve to have the Buffalo shooters rampage being played on an endless loop on Twitter and elsewhere? As far as I'm concerned, it's just inspiration for the next kid to step up. Let's not act surprised and outraged when it happens though. You know some say the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's where we are in this country."I really don't grasp the idea that we should maintain free speech at all costs especially when the outcomes are so clearly detrimental. "
So, are you saying the government should censor speech because crazy people do crazy things?
"What purpose does it serve to have the Buffalo shooters rampage being played on an endless loop on Twitter and elsewhere?"
So, do you want the government to censor the press?
Again, North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba are all places where the government controls the press and free speech. Is THAT the kind of country you want to live in?The kind of country I want to live in is where we have some common sense. The kind of country that I want to live in, We would choose to do something about mass shootings.
Americans must make the distinction that free speech does not allow you to promote racism, and to promote antisemitism, Islamophobia, all sorts of hatred and also suggest that violence is the appropriate response to hate.
How are we going to address the platforms that allow for this type of hate radicalization to take place? Whether it is on social media, whether it's Fox News, at some point, we have to stop repeating these stories. When will the social media platforms be held accountable?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution safeguards free speech, including speech that shocks or offends. But that protection does not extend to speech that incites violence or puts the public in danger.
And yes, I see no purpose of this massacre being played out on the internet over and over. You do? Your analogy of limiting free speech and becoming North Korea is a bit extreme. But no fear, unfettered free speech, hate and all still reigns. Mass murderers in the making are able to watch and relish the shooting of the shoppers in Buffalo to their racist hearts content. Any bets on when the next one will happen?"But that protection does not extend to speech that incites violence or puts the public in danger."
Who determines this...the government? Again, this is how things are done in North Korea, Cuba, etc.
"Mass murderers in the making are able to watch and relish the shooting of the shoppers in Buffalo to their racist hearts content."
Have you read about this guy who did the shooting in Buffalo? He'd been planning it since he was in high school. He talked about killing people then and when he was sent to a psyche ward...he said he lied to get out of class. This was a mentally ill person that the system failed to identify and address. It had nothing to do with news stories. There is no facts that support he was motivated by Fox News, etc. That is a fantasy made up in the minds of the left.
Again, there are no facts to support the assumption he was influenced by the media.Look, I'm tired of the excuses and usual partisanship. This boys manifesto was posted online 2 whole days before he shot up the grocery store. The document outlined his intentions in a very detailed manner yet nothing was done. No action taken by the platform. It's time for accountability.
Are you suggesting that we ignore the first amendment because you don't want the government to enforce limits on hate speech when it's clearly been shown to lead to or incite hate crime?
I never said this boy was influenced by the media. I don't know what he was watching. But his online presence on sites such as discord and 4chan are clearly documented. He based his massacre on replacement theory and there is no doubt this theory has creeped into mainstream media.
A New York Times analysis revealed, Tucker Carlson Tonight, has had an obsession with replacement theory: In more than 400 shows the newspaper analyzed, Carlson evoked the idea of forced demographic change through immigration and other methods. Carlson is not alone: A Media Matters examination of Fox’s rhetoric throughout 2021 found that the network embraced replacement theory, or, as it is more commonly known among extremists, “white genocide.” Such fears have become commonplace campaign talking points among Republican candidates.
Yes, I've read about this boy. I've read the manifesto. He claims to have acted alone, while in the same breath admitting, “I’ve had many influences from others.” The 180 pages of the document reveal the breadth of those influences: it is largely mixture, with page upon page of racist and antisemitic memes compiled in collages; collections of scientific studies of I.Q. differentials between racist groups; screenshots and links to news articles that confirm his prejudices; and segments of other manifestos.
He details how he had been radicalized by reading online message boards, while describing the attack as terrorism and himself as a White supremacist. He wrote that he had "moved farther to the right" politically over the last three years.
Also, This boy should have never been able to purchase a gun based on his mental health history.The kind of country I want to live in is where we have some common sense. The kind of country that I want to live in, We would choose to do something about mass shootings.
Americans must make the distinction that free speech does not allow you to promote racism, and to promote antisemitism, Islamophobia, all sorts of hatred and also suggest that violence is the appropriate response to hate.
How are we going to address the platforms that allow for this type of hate radicalization to take place? Whether it is on social media, whether it's Fox News, at some point, we have to stop repeating these stories. When will the social media platforms be held accountable?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution safeguards free speech, including speech that shocks or offends. But that protection does not extend to speech that incites violence or puts the public in danger.
---------------------
We have to be careful about this idea. While a famous past Supreme Court justice had once said that free speech does not include the right to yell fire a crowded theatre, there are many that would look upon your view and see it as censorship. My perspective sees the greater danger of the muzzling of controversial and contrary ideas as coming from the Right. As censorship has always been a tool in the autocratic, authoritarian toolbox and it would be more throughly used against the Left than the other way around.
I don't know how, anywhere, that an 18 year old can purchase an assualt weapon but yet cannot legally consume alcohol.
I may not be able to stop the messaging or know that we really should, but the perpetrators need to be aware that if one of them so much as spits on my lawn, that there will be tangible consequences. Free speech does not translate into "free action". Mental illness, just as it was for Root and the others, is Jedi Mind Trick used to skirt the darker issue that "they" do not want to acknowledge and hope that we ignore.
Free speech, regardless as to how ugly, must be protected if only to protect my right to do the same."Free speech, regardless as to how ugly, must be protected if only to protect my right to do the same."
Even when it incites violence? Or in the case of sites such as Discord and 4chan and worse yet 8chan, directly call for violence and true threat? The noxious speech that is found there is often metastasizing into physical violence. I suppose you could say, in a way, This type of "free speech" is literally killing us. At the very least shouldn't these platforms be held accountable?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ … nd-spencerFaye, everything and anything can incite violence in this culture. When I think about what is going on in this society today, it is all that I can do to contain myself. But, I am always irritated with people who cannot control themselves.
I read the article, thanks..
I cannot control what people think, believe or communicate amongst themselves, I can only control behavior.
Let "them" call for what they want, there are only a few that would risk arrest and prosecution or litigation (taking every penny they have) by actually responding to the call.
There are uncountless others just like the Buffalo shooter that escape detection as mentally ill. That is assuming that he was, and I doubt it. This shooter's racism was a stark choice and not some sort of mental aberration. The legal process in making that determination by law which is the only way to deny someone access to a firearm has no easy path.
We had in Denver back in 1984, a murder of a famous KOA radio commentator, Alan Burg, assassinated, mowed down assualt style by Anti-Semitic Montana/Idaho based racists that focused on his AM broadcasts that could be heard over great distances at night. What could he say over a public medium that would incite this group to violence?
Whose free speech incites violence and what speech from others do not?As Sharlee might say '---Speechless'
And I mean it just as she did; I agree and don't need to say more.
But you know I will . . .
I think you nailed this one bud. I also agree with Faye that as a society we should be looking for solutions. And to complete the triad, I completely agree with Mike's point that hate speech is whatever the current controlling authority says it is.
Any solution has to start with those three realities, so censorship can't be the solution.
I've got some ideas, but y'all ain't ready yet. ;-)
GA
I have similar feelings regard those sites especially since investigating them as well as others a few years back when exploring Qanon. If you think they are bad try a peek on the dark web through the Tor Project. I warn anyone it ain't pretty being pretty dark. Scary as it collides with one's reality of the world, yet is a feature of our entertainment world and gaming life. hint, hint
I don't see how exactly those type of sites can be held accountable since the internet is not owned. Regulated and restricted by nations, yet not owned. However, I know just enough to be dangerous. So, if interested below is an idea of how one goes about disrupting a site such as 8chan.
https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2020 … cture.html
As a nation we can legislate restrictions while considering the free speech issue is at the top of list. Yet, what happens when the hosting company for a site is in Mexico for instance. What then?That 'hosting' nation thought was a good one. It seems to also argue against censorship as a solution.
GAHonestly I think and hope everyone will go and take a look at these sites. Many online extremists and the movements with which they sympathize can trace their origins to either 4chan or 8chan. They are some of the most vile places on the internet.
These are places where violence is inspired, encouraged and applauded. I'm fairly certain Republicans and Democrats could agree that They hate found in those places is inciting violence.Do you believe that rap lyrics should be censored? Many of the are very violent. Are they responsible for violence in urban communities?
This is by rapper Esham.
"I used to love her, too bad I had to put a slug through her/Dumped her body in the trash like I never knew her/Blood runnin down the gutter into the sewer/Her body stunk for weeks like horse manure"
This is by rapper Scarface
"Snuck up behind him, had his hands in his pocket/Took my pistol out, unlocked it/Pulled the hammer back and cocked it/And left his s**it all on the carpet/I seen a (murder, murder) I pin-pointed my target/I'm making my way up out the building/I got the ni**a that I came here to get, notify his children/That they old man done fell up out the game/Because I came through this m******ka/And killed his ass just like Jesse James"
Here is one from Above the Law
"At this second her boy walked in/I said man do I have to act crazy again/Then I grabbed my weapon it's time to get ill/You can say it is cool or you can straight get pilled/With buck shots I mean all over the place/In your back, your side/In your stomach, in your face/Cause I don't really care what your girlfriend says/If you keep talkin' s**t you get a bullet in your head"
This is just a SMALL sample of the violent rap lyrics millions of kids listen to every day.
"Free speech, regardless as to how ugly, must be protected if only to protect my right to do the same."
On this, you and I are in complete agreement.Well, Mike, it is like a Geneva Convention concept between opposing sides, with a boundary neither thinks that it is wise to cross.
Let me just ask the "free speech at all costs" contingent a question, have y'all gone on Twitter and watched the footage of the Buffalo shooting as the boy livesteamed it? Have you entered 4chan to read the glorification and the plans of the next massacre? Have you seen the comments of exaltation? Praise? Can you see the seeds planted for the next boy to take up the cause? If you haven't, I highly suggest you do. Please don't avoid it.
Have you ever taken a good look at what speech will get you jailed (or assassinated) in China or Russia?
Given that governments reason for existence is to control every aspect of our lives (no big gulp, no abortions, no guns, seat belts, excessive taxation, etc.) and that that same government has the power to get what it wants, how do we convince it to only ban speech that is truly harmful? To the people, not the government - must allow that to continue.
And then how do we decide just what is harmful and what is not? By a government appointed committee?"Have you ever taken a good look at what speech will get you jailed (or assassinated) in China or Russia?"
I live in Arkansas, not Russia or China. And I can watch a boy assassinate shoppers in a grocery store from the comfort of my couch. I can read the comments that cheer him on. Is this supposed to be some kind of benefit?
I disagree, I don't think that these murders need to be played out over and over on the internet gathering steam and followers. Like I said, go take a look maybe you'll have a change of heart.Your point, that we are talking about being here, not Russia or China is a good one. But Wilderness' point, that a form of the same censorship stuff, (in varying degrees), has the potential to happen here, where we are, if the only restriction is who controls the definition of hate speech is also a good one.
Suppose that all agreed with you that 4ch and 8ch-type speech is hate speech. Also, suppose that the sites are hosted by a server in some not-so-friendly country. How will you ban access to them? I don't know these things, but it would seem to be hard to do if the other country didn't want to help.
Another supposition: Suppose we are just talking about US-based access. Who decides where the line is crossed? If it is the problem it is now, then letting the platforms be their own regulators certainly hasn't worked, so who defines the line?
. . . and just as a nudge, I know that you must know, that once something hits the internet it is eternally there. There is no stopping the looping. You might stop it from upright citizens, but what about the others, the ones that least need to see it, the ones that know how to do the Tor or 'Dark web' stuff, how do you stop them?
Consider those first two examples. What would you suggest as workable? If you see a direction around the logic of them, then it would be time to talk about the definition and placement of that 'line'.
Until then, more censorship isn't going to do anything but create more 'work-arounds; dark webs, encrypted sites, more 'rebel' souls, etc. Nobody controls the internet anymore. They can only control the access of the people they control, and the narrative those people can see. (Could new 'Starlink'-type access services soon counter even that control?)
GAThe shooter invited others to attend his Discord stream before his attack. So is this the new Netflix?? Murder on demand? No, platforms have clearly not provided any regulation. But they should face consequences. I clearly understand that regulating the dark web is a monumental task but I have a hard time understanding why these murders are being played out on Twitter over and over.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/18/buffa … ogle-docs/If that is your response to those suppositions, then what you are saying is, 'somebody ought to do something.'
That's not much of a suggestion.
GACircling back with another thought. Groups would like to continue to guarantee the right for individuals to broadcast murder, violence and speech that incites violence. At the same time, many of these same groups are part of a new new wave of censorship sweeping the country: book banning.
A child is able to sit down and get a steady diet of online hate yet his high school may have just banned him from being exposed to To Kill a Mockingbird. It's a real disconnect for me.If your "groups" are those like 4ch, et al. then it works as a generalization, but if it includes free speech advocacy groups then it stinks.
I think most 'groups', other than the 4ch idiots, would agree with your description of them. They would probably also support some method of reducing the damage they do.
Although you see Free Speech advocates, (conservatives), as supporting the right to do what those types of sites do: ". . . broadcast murder, violence and speech that incites violence.", I see them as supporting a demand that any solution continues to protect that Right. Censorship based on undefined rules does not do that.
Can you mark the lowest limits of hate speech or inciteful speech—the line where just the slightest degree of change puts it on the legal side of the line?
Your inferences are way off-base. Think about that 'lowest limits' question from my described perspective of those Free Speech groups. Could you offer them a guarantee that the definitions used by a censorship solution couldn't be changed to expand those definitions arbitrarily?
I think you can fix that 'disconnect', consider the solution you want as a worst-case result along with your view of it as the best-case result. Find a median view, (a compromise?), and see if you still think conservative groups support the broadcast of "". . . broadcast murder, violence, and speech that incites violence."
GAI believe that students have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else in school libraries, and removing books based on content is unconstitutional censorship. This type of censorship is ok? How does this fly at the same time free speech advocates call for no limits/rules or accountability on media platforms?
You are repeating yourself. And so will I, most conservatives are not for no limits or rules. Speaking as a conservative, all 'we' want is acceptable definable rules and limits. You don't accept that. I think you are wrong.
You complain about your 'censorship' solution being opposed because 'we' want a no-rules-no-limits Right. You can easily debunk your own thought; ask any conservative if they think Free Speech entitles them to yell fire in a crowded theater. That's an accepted limit, a chink in your 'no rules no limits' claim.
You are still saying somebody ought to do something but you don't say how to do it. A conditioned censorship might be one way, but what would that be?
Start that conversation and see if you can sway any opinions. Start with the first question that must be answered", what is the lowest limits of hate speech or inciteful speech—the line where just the slightest degree of change puts it on the legal side of the line?
Can you answer that question? I can't.
GABut I can ask the question why conservatives need to censor books in school libraries that are otherwise not pornographic merely because they present ideas that are in opposition to their own and can be readily accessed.
Do conservatives know where the line should be properly drawn? Are non conforming ideas something conservatives would consider as a source of unnecessary incitement of the masses?This is exactly what I'm talking about. It seems like some are perfectly happy to let hateful, inciting language stand. Videos circulated on the internet depicting real-time footage of murder while others cheer it on and discuss their own plans seems all acceptable. But they're banning books at the same time??
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act most likely needs to go so that these platforms can be held accountable for what they are allowing. Let the families go at it in court. Let people who are harmed sue the heck out of them. Then we will probably see them implementing some policy governing their platforms.Something of that nature was what was involved with Alex Jones and the massacre of elementary school students in the Northeast several years ago?
You can't really objectify so many of these things, because as they say, one man's pornography is another man's art.
There has been talk about creating a arm of the government to specifically deal with domestic terrorism. Republicans shot it down over free speech issues. But, I bet that if you replace the word "domestic" with "Islamic", they would be stumbling over themselves to support it.
What would have happened if there was no one there to film the graphic murder of George Floyd? How many authorities would have loved to have kept the reality behind this information under wraps? Video, like everything else can be misused, but in this society it shines irrefutable light on practices that have been heretofore conveniently hidden. I would rather it stay than disappear.
There is no outrage on the Right, and yes, I pick on the Right, as long as censorship is selective, even if it means pulling offensive books from shelves, yet defending the most heinous of material under the guise of free speech.
I don't think that the tumor can really be removed without removing vital organs in the process. I have to stand firm against censorship, whether it comes from the Right or the Left.
"But I can ask the question why conservatives need to censor books in school libraries that are otherwise not pornographic"
"I can't define it but I know it when I see it" Common phrase applicable here, because it IS pornography...just ask those wishing to ban it.
Yeah, they know where to draw the lines. Right where they say to...which is exactly where you want to draw them. Right where you say to. Problem is that you don't actually know where they should be drawn...just ask any conservative!
Not defending "book burning" of any type (although I will concede that some books are not appropriate for elementary schools) - just pointing out that opinions differ and far left liberal ones are not the only ones that count.And what is far liberal for an acceptable book? The conservatives have remove books from libraries that touched on race and anything controversial, so that we are left with only"Dick and Jane" primers in libraries.
Yes, inspite of that, there are age relevant themes and topics tha of course has to be taken into consideration. I would just like to know the yardstick these red states are using to censor books. Righties are always afraid of controversial ideas.Who knows? Ones that attempt to teach children about gender identity and what to do if they are in the wrong body?
Yes, Righties are afraid of far left ideas. With good reason for they are seldom well thought out and often do far more damage than they do good.But videos of murder in real time left up on internet platforms are ok with you? As long as high school students aren't able to read to kill a mockingbird in high school??
Of course, you can question the conservatives on their actions. I do. But that has nothing to do with the comment you responded to.
I doubt conservatives know where 'the' line should be drawn, but just for kicks, and relative to the internet issues that were being discussed, let's say you have convinced me a little censorship would be worth the sacrifice—on par with the fire example.
How will you enforce it? Start with the worst stuff, Faye's 4ch and 8ch examples, how will you censor it when it is coming from a foreign country?
GA
Unlikely, for I understand what kind of government, and what kink of life is led, under regimes that censor what people can say.
But I would think there is a middle ground. For instance, it is already illegal to instigate a riot. It is illegal to discuss assassination of our president. It should not be that difficult to find language that would allow all speech...except that which is intended to promote harming other people.
I guess it's like illegal drug usage. NO matter how you try to stop it, those who want it will find a way. You seem focused on the Buffalo shooter and the problem is much larger than you imagine. You start censoring things and it will get ugly.
You may want to read this article.
"Frank James? Andy Ngo, editor of the Post Millennial, found numerous posts from what appears to be his Facebook page promoting BLM, the Black Liberation Army, Nation of Islam, and individuals who attacked whites. He posted a photo of a man who killed five Dallas police officers in 2016 and called on people to kill whites. Just before the April 12 shooting, he posted a video of himself shouting racist statements on a New York street."
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz … ationalism
Should Fran James be silenced?Buffalo is just the latest incident. I find it very shocking that this boys's detailed plans were posted for 2 days before he acted. At the very least their needs to be more attention to those forums. Most mass shooters had connections to the chans.
"Livestreaming this attack gives me some motivation in the way that I know that some people will be cheering for me,” the shooter said.
We may be approaching the moment where we have to make online platforms at least civilly, if not criminally liable, for their live-streaming technology. It may be time to impose a new set of rules on the online platforms.
The ability of victims’ families to sue platforms like Twitch could put pressure on the online companies to implement more procedures, safety, security and validation checks. Maybe getting rid of section 230 and the cover it provides in giving immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content is a start.
And in terms of the article that you linked. Black nationalism is no different than white nationalism and should be addressed for the danger it poses also. Hate is hate And we have a growing problem with it in this country.It is incredibly easy to sit back and say "Someone should do something!" without having a clue what could be done.
It is also incredibly easy to sit back and say "These kinds of things should be banned" without defining what "kinds" means in language that a court can use but government cannot use to censor everyday speech.
You are doing both. Censorship is a very touchy subject, particularly in our country and it is not something to be demanded at the drop of a hat.
No, but it should be made clear that while "Black Nationalism" is clearly on the periphery of extremism in this society, white supremacy is not as clearly shown by the differences in incidents and body counts. We can thank the GOP and its operatives for making it all comfy and suitable for the evening dinner table.
I have not accessed this 4chan or 8chan sites, having to go into a definition of what they are according to encyclopedias. I have neither a twitter or Facebook account for privacy reasons.
We had these issues rise in the face of pornography on the internet a few years ago. I don't like censorship as it is designed to protect us against possible incitement of the feeble minded or the relative fragility and innocence associated with minors. Because of the weaknesses of the lowest common denominators, my access to information is to be curtailed?
I always took offense at people who wanted to control my access to information under the presumption that I am not well enough equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff on my own.
There are certainly boundaries that may well be crossed that is not protected speech. If so, let them apply. I just say that we have to be careful as to where they are drawn as such a tool can be used in a sinister way.
Tyrants have always used issues of public safety to stifle speech from adversaries. What would keep that from happening in America and who would be the arbiter as to what speech is acceptable verses otherwise?
"Are you suggesting that we ignore the first amendment because you don't want the government to enforce limits on hate speech when it's clearly been shown to lead to or incite hate crime?"
I don't think the government, especially one run by Democrats, is capable of determining what is and is not hate speech. The current administration is probably going to go down in history as the most incompetent to ever be in the White House.
Democrats would not care about preventing hate speech. They would only prevent speech they don't like and call it hate speech.
"it's clearly been shown to lead to or incite hate crime?"
You mean like the media's role in the 2020 riots where cities were burned to the ground, people were killed and over a billion dollars in damage was caused. Is the media responsible?
What do you think the media's role was in that and every other riot that has occurred in modern America?
Do you think the media is responsible for Micah Xavier Johnson?
"Chief Brown said that Johnson, who was Black, was upset about recent police shootings of Black men and "stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers. An investigation into his online activities uncovered his interest in Black nationalist groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and news outlets reported that Johnson "liked" the Facebook pages of Black nationalist organizations such as the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), Nation of Islam, and Black Riders Liberation Army, three groups which are listed by the SPLC as hate groups. On Facebook, Johnson posted an angry and "disjointed" post against White people on July 2, several days before the attack."
"Maybe" is not worth the price of a cup of coffee. You are grasping at what ever straws you can to distract others from the magnitude of the crime in Buffalo.
The Left is going to play this to the fullest extent; the troika of the proliferation of dangerous firearms, the Carlson racist messenging and advocacy's role as part of the manifesto of this kid and finally, the extremes taken in the abortion controversy.
We are going to push it all with everything we got.....No proof he was anything other than a very mentally disturbed individual. If you read about him you would know he told people he hated Fox News.
Mike, isn't that what you guys ALWAYS say as an excuse?
No, he is just a racist just as so many that follow the GOP line is, in reality, but continue the attempt to conceal such.
Referring to his choice of media as evidence isn't even a clever dodge or parry. I see something far more sinister and dangerous behind this veneer of calm in the face of fascistic intolerance being offered by Rightwing that is everyday ever more representative of the heart of the "Grand Old Party"
In this instance, I think the Free Speech claim is right. Google says this Senator is a nut, or a scheming politician, or a Representative of the voters that elected her.
I think the last is the worst case, the second choice is just typical, and the first is the most innocent—nuts are everywhere. So the best hope is that she is just a nut.
GAHas she made any formal statements on the tweet "Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo"? This seems pretty clear in regard to context. Not cool. But she has the right to free speech. We have the right to say --- not cool, not called for, and IMO not true.
I picked up this more recent tweet
Wendy Rogers
@WendyRogersAZ
Of course I condemn the violence in Buffalo, who doesn’t? I also condemn the #FakeNews and the government promoting violence and then blaming it on regular patriotic Americans as if regular Americans share those despicable views. Everything is not what it seems!
1:11 PM · May 16, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
Not sure what to make of this tweet. This is the problem with tweets, they cause one to play detective on what the hell they are meant to mean.
Has she put out a statement on her "Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo" tweet?
I know nothing about the woman, but she certainly sounds eccentric at best.
Related Discussions
- 101
Banks attacked... the perversion of "free speech" comes home
by Shadesbreath 12 years ago
So, for those people who were arguing how "free speech" includes the "right" to "say whatever I want" no matter what the outcomes of your free speech are for other people (including getting people killed from your right to draw pictures that incite riots etc.), now I...
- 62
Lets talk about the dangerous language the left is speaking ?
by ahorseback 7 years ago
"Time to destroy Trump and company ",......."The most dangerous leader ever elected "..........."lets get him ", Kathy Griffin , is but one source of a voice speaking louder and louder of a language that is dangerous , a language that is already...
- 35
Fox News Reporter Tells Republicans to Hit Obama Voters in the Face
by Dr Billy Kidd 11 years ago
It's been a couple of days now. Fox News Reporter Andrea Tantaros said that if you see a person who voted for Obama, hit 'em in the face. Why is there no discussion of this? Is inciting to violence the new hate message from Fox? Go figure.....http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-andrea- …...
- 18
Hillary Clinton’s Propaganda Remarks Raise Free Speech Concerns
by Sharlee 7 months ago
Photo from Bing Free to use files.I hope my opinion piece will spark meaningful discussion and provide food for thoughtHillary Clinton has recently sparked controversy with comments regarding the potential criminal or civil punishment of Americans spreading propaganda, particularly that connected...
- 35
Do rights come with responsibilities?
by Michael Collins aka Lakemoron 12 years ago
Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have the right to say what you want you have to take responsibility for what you say. Is...
- 128
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?
by LoliHey 8 years ago
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences." I beg to differ, though. You're supposed to be able...