My problem with Section 230 of the Communications Decency act is best explained by a New York Times article I came across:
A homeless, psychotic woman conceives an unfounded hatred for a man and his family. She spends her time in public libraries spreading the most disgusting, deranged lies about them across the Internet. Not politicians or actors. Just common people, like you, accused of unspeakable acts.
It destroys their reputation. But they have no real recourse. Sue the woman? She has no money or assets. Moreover, when they hire a lawyer to try to get the crazy woman to desist, the nutter then spreads vile lies and slander about the lawyer. The crazy woman has got nothing else to do with her day except destroy innocent people’s lives.
This is nuts. We all know it happens. It can happen to anyone on this forum. And it is allowed to happen because of Section 230 of the laughably named Communications Decency act.
There was plenty of mass media before the internet existed, and that mass media is very careful about slandering/libeling people, because they can get sued. It was an experiment in free speech that ran for 220 years, and the USA of prospered just fine under it.
So why does anyone think things would be different if the Internet operated under the same rules? The experiment has been run. The results are clear.
I never mentioned any such thing. Your freedoms exist whether your constitution says so or not.
Again, the constitution is not the origin of your freedoms. Your constitution is one of the rarities that actually mentions this fact in that it prevents laws being made to curtail pre-existing freedoms.
You don’t need constitutional protection to be an ‘a$$hole’. You are free to be one.
As frequently happens, you’ve managed to miss the point entirely. You can say any ridiculous thing you want to. Just not necessarily on a platform where anybody will hear it.
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself. —Oscar Wilde
As have you.
My point is a bit broader than just a social media platform although we should remember an entire social media platform, Parler, was wiped out by your mates - so the usual response of “If you don’t like Twitter, start your own” falls a bit flat.
The current craze of deplatforming has not just infested social media. People have been banned from banks, businesses, airlines, even Uber Eats for political opinions. Some have been banned from public buildings. Universities, the supposed bastions of western civilisation founded on the quest for truth - not political correctness, ban speakers, staff and students on political, racial and philosophical grounds. Some even admit it. People are sacked or disinvited losing their jobs and income.
These things are staring you in the face but you sit there smugly assured that it can’t happen to you. Your politics are pure. It’s only happening to nasty people with the wrong views. Until you can stand up for the freedoms and rights of the people you hate, you have no concept of freedom of speech. Think here for example of the Jews who defended the rights of Nazis to march through Skokie. Are you that good?
" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Pastor Martin Niemoller
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. —George Orwell
Not taking sides here , but that Orwell quote makes a bit of sense. Found myself in the mud a few times for doing exactly the same thing. Never been bashful.
Right now I’d prefer the former communist state of Poland’s rules for free speech than the only one with constitutionally protected free speech but a citizenry half of whom don’t know and don’t care what it means.
At least the Poles remember the evil of rule by a totalitarian state and they don’t want some American oligarch doing to their president what he did on a whim to the POTUS.
She was a passenger on a luxury yacht sailed by the owners on the one crossing that I know of. Even so, she could pick up a lot of seamanship in that time. I train such teenagers from scratch and have them under sail at sea in a few hours and some (the better ones) are capable of reasonably taking charge of the ship by the end of the week, weighing anchor under sail, navigating under sail to another anchorage and furling the sails with all that entails.
Whether Greta turned out to be a mariner would have been up to her and her skipper. She might have just stayed below and played computer games. She did the stunt to get publicity and of course the idiot media lapped it up.
She sailed as a passenger westbound to America on the Malizia II, a racing monohull sailboat and back to Europe on La Vagabonde, a cruising catamaran sailboat owned and sailed by an Australian couple.
I saved the world from the sanctimony of me trying to save the world … that doesn’t need saving, other than from people who think they can save the world. They’d do better to start by cleaning up their room.
In fact I had a great day, feet up, cold rum and cokes and watched the fascinating movie by Mike Lindell ‘The Pillow Guy’.
Thanks. I was talking about the catamaran. But I now recall the racing yacht. She sailed to avoid the emissions of her flying but her presence aboard meant that another crew member (or was it two?) had to fly across the Atlantic instead thereby causing the same emissions or more. So she saved nothing.
Facts supported by science are not political to make them so is to defy reason. Galileo was threatened with torture for daring to say planets revolve around the sun. Turing, Einstein and Domagk who brought many advances to the world were also persecuted for their discoveries and ostracized. Looking to politicians for science or truth of any nature is a fools errand.
Bad analogies there. Man made climate change is widely accepted by the global community & it is the doubters that are ostracized, silenced, insulted & threatened with criminal charges in some places. Me personally, I know the climate is changing & believe humans have affected it to some degree but also acknowledge those who believe differently than me are more likely to be persecuted for their beliefs. I don’t think the debate on the subject should be stopped like many others do. People shouldn’t be ostracized, ridiculed or lose their livelihoods because they are skeptical of current public opinions/facts.
I’m not looking to carry the water for the climate change deniers so I’m not arguing about. It is my opinion it is those who question the science & public opinion of man made climate change theory who are ostracized & treated like Galileo Galilei, not the other way around. If you believe otherwise that is fine by me. I’ll leave it at that.
