Where my free speech people at?

[UrHuckleberry]

This is what's so frustrating. I just said I don't agree with people going to jail simply for saying things. So have all of the other posters on this board. Why do you keep asking?

Which was my point. He is clearly passionate about it. Which is great, we all have things we are passionate about. I have things that I am passionate about. But he is just not content with us not having the exact same level of passion that he does I guess.

 

[yoshi121374]

Which was my point. He is clearly passionate about it. Which is great, we all have things we are passionate about. I have things that I am passionate about. But he is just not content with us not having the exact same level of passion that he does I guess.

See... I don't think he actually is passionate. I think he knows it's a topic that he can rile people up and get attention.

Hence why he isn't willing to bend at all and just says idiotic stuff for attention

Dude is a troll.

 

[fatpiggy]

This is what's so frustrating. I just said I don't agree with people going to jail simply for saying things. So have all of the other posters on this board. Why do you keep asking?

You just argued that someone should go to jail for saying "I will pay for your murder." That is just saying things. It's frusturating on my end when you are condescending and then contradict yourself at the same time.

So clearly, i am trying to see where everyone draws the line. It's not that hard.

 

[fatpiggy]

Which was my point. He is clearly passionate about it. Which is great, we all have things we are passionate about. I have things that I am passionate about. But he is just not content with us not having the exact same level of passion that he does I guess.

I am just curious how people say they believe in free speech but then you press them on it and they don't really believe in free speech. I don't really give a sh it what you believe in, i just want it to be labeled properly.

For example, The British dude yesterday said "Europe has free speech". They clearly dont. If you can't call a man a man, then you don't have free speech at all.

It's not that i am passionate about it, I just don't understand and hence my effort to have a conversation about it. To me it's like the saying "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining".

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[fatpiggy]

Lots of calls for the US to stop defending Europe until they restore free speech. So what exactly is free speech? It's not a troll to want to discuss that. On a discussion board no less.

 

[tigres88]

Lots of calls for the US to stop defending Europe until they restore free speech. So what exactly is free speech? It's not a troll to want to discuss that.

there aren't "lots of calls" for anything other than a clearly manufactured Social Media influx of posts by bots and other far right American influencers to support a narrative MAGA wants to hawk right now.

This stuff isn't even hard, and yall don't see how easily you're clearly being influenced by what other people want you to believe. You're literally being shaped by social media algorithms, faux outrage, and bots to outrage you and make you a deeper adherent to your world view.

 

[FLaw47]

You just argued that someone should go to jail for saying "I will pay for your murder." That is just saying things. It's frusturating on my end when you are condescending and then contradict yourself at the same time.

So clearly, i am trying to see where everyone draws the line. It's not that hard.

Ok fine. I think it's fine for it to be illegal to conspire to commit other crimes yes. I also think that blackmail should be illegal and it should be illegal to say "give me all of your money or I will kill you".

If these posts did not include threats of violence or similar things, I do not think that should be a criminal offense.

To restate my previously stated position, I do not think there should be criminal consequences to speech for things that aren't pretty directly related to a threat a person's property or the person themselves. I am sure there are exceptions to this but I do not claim to be a "free speech absolutist".

I do not think that the government calling facebook and asking them to remove posts of disinformation is a 1st amendment issue. I do think the FCC chair threatening a broadcasters license if they don't censor is.

 

[fatpiggy]

It's so far past even your definition in Europe. They are jailing people for much less than threats to people and property. I am wondering how they got there, how they still think they have free speech, and why we are still allies with them if they do that. It goes against everything America stands for. I am also concerned that level of censorship will make its way to America.

And i think the government calling Facebook and asking them to remove posts of disinformation is a 1st amendment issue. I do think the FCC chair threatening a broadcasters license if they don't censor also is. They are both concerning and equally wrong. The government has no business in stifling speech. The first amendment says so. We The People should not give up our rights peacefully because once they are gone you will have to fight with violence to get them back.

 

[PawPride]

Why are you even bothering to try and have a discussion with Piggy? The next time he has a discussion in good faith will be the first time.

 

[yoshi121374]

It's so far past even your definition in Europe. They are jailing people for much less than threats to people and property. I am wondering how they got there, how they still think they have free speech, and why we are still allies with them if they do that. It goes against everything America stands for. I am also concerned that level of censorship will make its way to America.

And i think the government calling Facebook and asking them to remove posts of disinformation is a 1st amendment issue. I do think the FCC chair threatening a broadcasters license if they don't censor also is. They are both concerning and equally wrong. The government has no business in stifling speech. The first amendment says so. We The People should not give up our rights peacefully because once they are gone you will have to fight with violence to get them back.

Why in the world do you care about what is happening in Europe?

This is just another in his long list of trolls topics. Ole Fastball gonna Ole Fastball. Still hasn't paid his bet off like the ***** he is

 

[FLaw47]

It's so far past even your definition in Europe. They are jailing people for much less than threats to people and property. I am wondering how they got there, how they still think they have free speech, and why we are still allies with them if they do that. It goes against everything America stands for. I am also concerned that level of censorship will make its way to America.

And i think the government calling Facebook and asking them to remove posts of disinformation is a 1st amendment issue. I do think the FCC chair threatening a broadcasters license if they don't censor also is. They are both concerning and equally wrong. The government has no business in stifling speech. The first amendment says so. We The People should not give up our rights peacefully because once they are gone you will have to fight with violence to get them back.

And we've all repeatedly said that we don't agree with what Europe has done (provided this is all accurately portrayed here).

The United States is actually one of the most liberal countries in the world from a free speech perspective (maybe the most but I'm not dead certain). We can't just literally stop being allies with people because they're less liberal on this issue than we are or we wouldn't have any allies.

 

[dpic73]

Re-posting this misleading tweet gets to the heart of why he's so passionate about this subject IMO. As we've seen over the last 10 years, the right-wing echo system has devolved into a morass of propaganda and misinformation and he's worried the freedom to mislead may be infringed upon. Hence what he's really concerned about is the Freedom to Lie.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Re-posting this misleading tweet gets to the heart of why he's so passionate about this subject IMO. As we've seen over the last 10 years, the right-wing echo system has devolved into a morass of propaganda and misinformation and he's worried the freedom to mislead may be infringed upon. Hence what he's really concerned about is the Freedom to Lie.

I in many ways do believe we should be free to lie in fairness. But I am also free to be passionate that lying, misleading, creating rage and the algorithms that feed them are the literal devil. I can speech that.

 

[yoshi121374]

I in many ways do believe we should be free to lie in fairness. But I am also free to be passionate that lying, misleading, creating rage and the algorithms that feed them are the literal devil. I can speech that.

That's what's so tough. I am not against free speech, but I wish our media platforms would moderate better and eliminate the bots and misinformation. There is a ton of proof that foreign actors are using this as a weapon to sow mistrust and angst.

To me it's not a Free speech issue as much as a national defense issue.

 

[dpic73]

I in many ways do believe we should be free to lie in fairness. But I am also free to be passionate that lying, misleading, creating rage and the algorithms that feed them are the literal devil. I can speech that.

Sure, I'm not implying that there shouldn't be freedom to lie, only that the fear of losing that freedom is what drives his passion.

 

[dpic73]

Lots of calls for the US to stop defending Europe until they restore free speech. So what exactly is free speech? It's not a troll to want to discuss that. On a discussion board no less.

How does it make sense to stop defending Europe over this issue, while at the same time we forge stronger alliances with countries that are worse, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar? We even issued a de facto defense promise to Qatar through a 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump, declaring any attack on Qatar a threat to US security and pledging "all lawful and appropriate measures—including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military" to defend it, essentially creating a NATO-style guarantee.

Qatar: Repressive new law further curbs freedom of expression

A new vaguely-worded law which criminalizes a broad range of speech and publishing activities stands to significantly restrict freedom of expression in Qatar

www.amnesty.org

 

[fatpiggy]

Why are you even bothering to try and have a discussion with Piggy? The next time he has a discussion in good faith will be the first time.

It's a discussion board.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

How does it make sense to stop defending Europe over this issue, while at the same time we forge stronger alliances with countries that are worse, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar? We even issued a de facto defense promise to Qatar through a 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump, declaring any attack on Qatar a threat to US security and pledging "all lawful and appropriate measures—including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military" to defend it, essentially creating a NATO-style guarantee.

Qatar: Repressive new law further curbs freedom of expression

A new vaguely-worded law which criminalizes a broad range of speech and publishing activities stands to significantly restrict freedom of expression in Qatar

www.amnesty.org

Waiting for FP to start sharing articles about free speech in Qatar and SA.

 

[yoshi121374]

Waiting for FP to start sharing articles about free speech in Qatar and SA.

It would track. MAGA has decided Europe is bad, while forging deeper relations with countries that have horrendous practices towards their people.

The lack of logic is astounding.

 

[dpic73]

It would track. MAGA has decided Europe is bad, while forging deeper relations with countries that have horrendous practices towards their people.

The lack of logic is astounding.

Is it that he gives Saudi Arabia and Qatar a pass because they bestow us with riches, including a 400 billion dollar jet and huge investment commitments?

Is it that he actually hates liberals in Democratic countries only because he fears their influence will make it's way here? We've seen the Trump administration and right-wing Americans sympathizing with the far-right in Europe this year, including Vance meeting with the Afd but not the leaders in Germany and Elon has been on the war-path for far-right Europeans for a while now. Though oddly, the far-right lobbies for restrictions on free speech there as well, including complaints against online insults.

This is here nor there, just anecdotal notes about what I experienced in Rome this past May. I met lots of people from England and Ireland while there and of course they all wanted to know what I thought about Trump. And even though they generally don't like Trump either, especially the ones from England, the Irish were somewhat sympathetic to him because of his anti-immigrant stance, which they have a problem with as well. But what they really liked about America, above all else, were our free speech laws. I had a long conversation with one 30-something Irish guy who repeatedly told me over and over that we needed to value and defend free speech with everything we've got because we would regret it if we lost it. He was so passionate about it that it struck me that it really is a huge issue for them because of the fear they have of consequences if they offend the state. Because of that experience, I do sympathize with them but not sure why we would fear it so much here since we're protected by the first amendment. If it were up to me, there would be consequences for knowingly spreading harmful lies online though I would never sign-off on following their restrictions and neither would the vast majority of Americans.

 

[Chumpsky]

This is free speech af

Foreign tourists could be required to disclose 5 years of social media histories under Trump administration plan

The Customs and Border Protection proposal would apply to travelers from more than 40 countries.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[dpic73]

 

[PawPride]

Where my free speech bros?

Catherine Rampell (@crampell.bsky.social)

According to a new court filing, the Trump administration has a six-page list of banned words that Head Start locations are forbidden from using when describing their programs. Among the censored words: "disability," "race," "women," "trauma," "Gulf of Mexico." Short thread with the full list. 🧵

bsky.app

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[fatpiggy]

Where my free speech bros?

Catherine Rampell (@crampell.bsky.social)

According to a new court filing, the Trump administration has a six-page list of banned words that Head Start locations are forbidden from using when describing their programs. Among the censored words: "disability," "race," "women," "trauma," "Gulf of Mexico." Short thread with the full list. 🧵

bsky.app

I'll make this easy. The government should not have the ability to censor speech. See how easy that is?

Our friends on the left will hem and haw and but this but that when it comes time for them to say that.

Both parties need to come together and defend the constitutional right to free speech.

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Have they chopped up a journalist to fit in suitcases yet in the Netherlands? They could get invited to the Whitehouse!

 

[baltimorened]

Have they chopped up a journalist to fit in suitcases yet in the Netherlands? They could get invited to the Whitehouse!

you're up early and in a feisty mood today.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

you're up early and in a feisty mood today.

ha, I'm always up early, but true

 

[FLaw47]

@fatpiggy, I gotta know. Should it be legal for a person to share classified military information an enemy nation? No document transmission, just verbally communicating at a park bench in person.

 

[fatpiggy]

@fatpiggy, I gotta know. Should it be legal for a person to share classified military information an enemy nation? No document transmission, just verbally communicating at a park bench in person.

Members of the military are held to a separate set of laws. I would separate their behavior from civilians and think it would be improper to share classified information.



“In the U.S., active-duty service members, reservists (when on duty), National Guard members (in federal service), cadets, and certain retirees are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a federal law enacted by Congress in 1951 (Title 10 U.S. Code Chapter 47). The UCMJ establishes a distinct military justice system with its own courts-martial, procedures, and punishments.”

 

[FLaw47]

Members of the military are held to a separate set of laws. I would separate their behavior from civilians and think it would be improper to share classified information.



“In the U.S., active-duty service members, reservists (when on duty), National Guard members (in federal service), cadets, and certain retirees are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a federal law enacted by Congress in 1951 (Title 10 U.S. Code Chapter 47). The UCMJ establishes a distinct military justice system with its own courts-martial, procedures, and punishments.”

Civilians can also have classified information. Should it be legal for them to share it with an enemy state?

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Members of the military are held to a separate set of laws. I would separate their behavior from civilians and think it would be improper to share classified information.



“In the U.S., active-duty service members, reservists (when on duty), National Guard members (in federal service), cadets, and certain retirees are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a federal law enacted by Congress in 1951 (Title 10 U.S. Code Chapter 47). The UCMJ establishes a distinct military justice system with its own courts-martial, procedures, and punishments.”

Are people in the UK subject to a separate set of laws? Isn’t there a separate law against hiring a contract killer?

 

[tigres88]

Members of the military are held to a separate set of laws. I would separate their behavior from civilians and think it would be improper to share classified information.



“In the U.S., active-duty service members, reservists (when on duty), National Guard members (in federal service), cadets, and certain retirees are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a federal law enacted by Congress in 1951 (Title 10 U.S. Code Chapter 47). The UCMJ establishes a distinct military justice system with its own courts-martial, procedures, and punishments.”

Side note- I love how smug he is in this. It's like he thinks he's some free speech guru

 

[fatpiggy]

Civilians can also have classified information. Should it be legal for them to share it with an enemy state?

I’d imagine you must sign something saying you give up your right to share classified information before you actually receive the classified information. Correct?

Don’t sign it and you won’t get the classified information.

Not much different than a non-disclosure agreement.

 

[fatpiggy]

Are people in the UK subject to a separate set of laws? Isn’t there a separate law against hiring a contract killer?

There is not a law against SAYING you are going to hire a contract killer. Make a payment and you have performed an action.

This is a really tough concept for the left. No doubt they will be back to censoring social media posts when they are back in power.

 

[FLaw47]

I’d imagine you must sign something saying you give up your right to share classified information before you actually receive the classified information. Correct?

Don’t sign it and you won’t get the classified information.

So no criminal penalties then, only civil?

 

[fatpiggy]

So no criminal penalties then, only civil?

I don’t know about your technicalities. As someone who has never been privy to classified information I have no idea what you sign before receiving it.

But it’s like a non disclosure agreement. You give up your rights and are subject to the document you signed.

I’d image if whether you are civilian or military you are subject to military law. But