tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:23 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:23 am
Perhaps what you guys are confusing is that we
all don't like speech with which we disagree.
That's true left, right, purple.
Indeed, what 'free speech' means is that we get to express that disagreement/dislike as vociferously as we want, without the government squashing us. And most importantly, we get to express our disagreement/dislike of what the government is doing.
What it does
not mean is that because someone expresses an opinion with which we disagree, we must shut up and not disagree, or not use our own voices to compete as loudly as we'd like with the other's speech...indeed, just the opposite, we are free from government interference.
Authoritarians wish to use the power of government to say which speech is allowed, which is not.
Again, this is not left, right, or purple, much less R or D...it is authoritarian.
But free people seeking to diminish the speech, compete with the speech, of other free people has nothing to do with our Constitution. It's only when we get the government involved in doing so that we begin to involve those rights.
So, for instance boycotts of those whose speech we dislike is entirely fair game. So are counter protests.
Of course, our free speech rights have some limits, we can't cry fire, we can't threaten violence, etc and we have limitations on false advertising, libel, fraud etc.
You're off base here, IMO, of course. It never used to be that people could lose their jobs because their employers are threatened by an outrage mob or fear for their lives due to, god forbid, their exercised 1st Amendment rights. The authoritarian BS has always been with us and will always be because of our so-called free society, and rights under the C, that's nothing new.
What is new (relatively speaking) is the internet and social media which gives anyone, and every hateful a hole with a grudge, a platform and inflated/delusional sense of power. Ironically, they have that right. Like all good things, the internet is sadly abused by duplicitous and deranged actors.
"Fear for their lives" crosses an important line. Not remotely ok.
Losing revenue is a choice.
I have no issue with corporations being faced with making that choice, they created and profited from brands that no longer will be purchased by a very large segment of the population. They are free to keep the brand and lose revenue or they can choose to re-brand. Up to them.
I don't see that in the slightest as 'authoritarian'. It's capitalist free market driven.
Now, if the government was to step in and evaluate each brand for its 'offensive' undertones, ok, now we're into constitutional territory. Same was true for the government getting involved in which Hollywood writers could be employed in the '50's. Not ok. At all.
Yes, the new technology enables the spread of vile 'speech' faster than ever before...though I suspect the same was said of the printing press, radio, TV, etc.
IMO, we remain in a bit of a 'Wild West' period of the new technologies, with insufficient guard rails agreed upon that check the spread of the most vile stuff. For instance, we've previously agreed upon standards for fraudulent advertising that restrict or punish the worst of such, but we haven't figured out yet how to check the spread of vilest of misinformation, false speech, racist speech, etc...indeed these platforms actually accelerate the spread of the most inflammatory speech rather than the most truthful.
Can we figure this out better? Yes, I think so.