Families of Buffalo Massacre Victims Sue Meta, Reddit, and Google Over Conspiracy Theories

[BrawlMan]

Look at that, Phoenix is goal posting and pulling shit out of his ass again. Nothing new here.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm still stuck on "the right used to be for censorship but that flipped"

The right's trying to shut down entire libraries, fucking hell

 

[Ag3ma]

The class wasn't banned. We've always had rules about what you can and cannot say to kids because they're kids and not adults.

Firstly, it was banned. You can make all sorts of pissy arguments about the technicalities but doing so is just angels dancing on the head of a pin. It was, de facto, a ban.

Secondly, you think free speech does not matter in a classroom, or has no relevance to what a school is allowed to teach? It absolutely does. True that to some degree schools and states have a say in what is appropriate to educate children, but there are still vital underlying points of free speech. It is simply absurd to think in a society that values free speech, certain topics should be routinely banned from being taught or discussed, because that is very plainly hostile to the concept of free speech.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Therefore "everyone knows" that absolute free speech is bullshit.

Most things fall under adults like, you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't mean that a 5 year has the right to own a gun. Thus, you just arguing in bad faith when you say "well, what about kids".

Look at that, Phoenix is goal posting and pulling shit out of his ass again. Nothing new here.

You don't know what goal posting is. I guess Americans don't have the right to bear arms because a 5 year old can't have a gun...

Not my fault people argue in bad faith.

Firstly, it was banned. You can make all sorts of pissy arguments about the technicalities but doing so is just angels dancing on the head of a pin. It was, de facto, a ban.

Secondly, you think free speech does not matter in a classroom, or has no relevance to what a school is allowed to teach? It absolutely does. True that to some degree schools and states have a say in what is appropriate to educate children, but there are still vital underlying points of free speech. It is simply absurd to think in a society that values free speech, certain topics should be routinely banned from being taught or discussed, because that is very plainly hostile to the concept of free speech.

A new class that's being tested and denied because it breaks the law is not banning the class. You have to work out the curriculum of any class.

Things are taught to kids based on what's appropriate for their age.

 

[Cheetodust]

Look at that, Phoenix is goal posting and pulling shit out of his ass again. Nothing new here.

His brain has been melted by his youtube algorithm.

 

[BrawlMan]

You don't know what goal posting is

I already what it is. You pretend to know what it is, but actually don't. Like you do with the majority of these subjects. I'm glad Congress nor any government never put you in charge of anything. That would suck for everybody and make things worse.

Not my fault people argue in bad faith.

So in other words, you. Good job on projecting. You're one step closer to admitting your own faults. You'll get there someday, or more than likely never. Your problem.

His brain has been melted by his youtube algorithm.

Precisely.

 

[Baffle]

His brain has been melted by his youtube algorithm.

Too much Prime water (it's healthier than orange juice).

 

[Absent]

Most things fall under adults like, you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't mean that a 5 year has the right to own a gun. Thus, you just arguing in bad faith when you say "well, what about kids".

Oh yes yes yes. So, absolute free speech unless kids are around because think of the children, it's SO OBVIOUS, it goes SO WITHOUT SAYING, that this exception isn't even an exception to absolute free speech that is absolute except that.

But it's the only exception - I mean, if it qualified as an exception which it sure doesn't because duh, it would be the ONLY exception, right ? Apart from that, absolute free speech is absolute, am I correct ?

Or is there a thing such as, for instance, non-disclosure, or state secrets ?

 

[Ag3ma]

A new class that's being tested and denied because it breaks the law is not banning the class. You have to work out the curriculum of any class.

Correct, and what is that law?

Spoiler

(Actually, semi-correct. The Florida education board claimed it was inconsistent with that law, but 1) public statements by the Florida authorities about the course's content appear to be inaccurate, 2) the law may be unsafe (see below), 3) whether it really does break the law is untested, 4) the Florida Education board is stuffed full of deeply ideological political appointees.)

I think you need to check it out more carefully, especially in the context that two provisions of it (covering universities and private businesses) have already been temporarily blocked in the courts on grounds of harm to free speech. Also start having a think about the "Don't Say Gay" law, recently expanded to apply to the entire school system.

Things are taught to kids based on what's appropriate for their age.

Decided by who - Ron De Santis, the Florida legislature and their crony-filled Education Board?

Do you not understand free speech at all? Back in the USSR people were also free to say anything the government permitted them to.

 

[Silvanus]

Stopping someone's speech is bad, full stop.

We've always had rules about what you can and cannot say to kids because they're kids and not adults.

So it's not "bad full stop". You recognise exceptions.

You and the rest of us disagree on where those exceptions lie. So here's an idea: rather than just screaming that everyone else must be "against free speech", try to acknowledge that everyone here is accepting of free speech with certain parameters and exceptions, and look at what they are.

From where I'm standing, an exception that prevents dickheads from spreading libelous conspiracy theories about the survivors of massacres is justifiable. Whereas an exception that prevents teachers from discussing the history of racism or talking to kids about sexuality even when the kids ask, is dangerous and authoritarian.

 

[Cheetodust]

Correct, and what is that law?

Spoiler

(Actually, semi-correct. The Florida education board claimed it was inconsistent with that law, but 1) public statements by the Florida authorities about the course's content appear to be inaccurate, 2) the law may be unsafe (see below), 3) whether it really does break the law is untested, 4) the Florida Education board is stuffed full of deeply ideological political appointees.)

I think you need to check it out more carefully, especially in the context that two provisions of it (covering universities and private businesses) have already been temporarily blocked in the courts on grounds of harm to free speech. Also start having a think about the "Don't Say Gay" law, recently expanded to apply to the entire school system.



Decided by who - Ron De Santis, the Florida legislature and their crony-filled Education Board?

Do you not understand free speech at all? Back in the USSR people were also free to say anything the government permitted them to.

No you don't get it. That doesn't violate free speech because that speech is illegal... man that sounds fucking stupid.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Do you not understand free speech at all? Back in the USSR people were also free to say anything the government permitted them to.

Like the old joke goes: In the US, you could walk right up to Ronald Reagan and say "I hate Ronald Reagan". In the USSR, you could walk right up to Nikita Khrushchev and say "I hate Ronald Reagan".

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I already what it is. You pretend to know what it is, but actually don't. Like you do with the majority of these subjects. I'm glad Congress nor any government never put you in charge of anything. That would suck for everybody and make things worse.


So in other words, you. Good job on projecting. You're one step closer to admitting your own faults. You'll get there someday, or more than likely never. Your problem.

You don't, you just throw things out thinking it's an auto-win to a debate/argument.

Oh yes yes yes. So, absolute free speech unless kids are around because think of the children, it's SO OBVIOUS, it goes SO WITHOUT SAYING, that this exception isn't even an exception to absolute free speech that is absolute except that.

But it's the only exception - I mean, if it qualified as an exception which it sure doesn't because duh, it would be the ONLY exception, right ? Apart from that, absolute free speech is absolute, am I correct ?

Or is there a thing such as, for instance, non-disclosure, or state secrets ?

You've had parents be able to take their kids out of certain classes forever if they didn't want their kid exposed to certain subject matter. And, yes, saying something to anyone isn't against the law but you can be fired for saying stuff that is deemed inappropriate whether it's saying something to a kid at school or just saying something at a regular job.

You're acting like if you get me to agree that saying "bomb" on an airplane is something that you should get in trouble for somehow proves I'm not for free speech. This is just asinine form of arguing. Yes, me agreeing to saying bomb at an airport is bad or not being allowed to share state secrets is akin to you being for limiting what ideas people can discuss. When I posted in here to begin with because you are actually for making it against the law (or at least some kind of enforceable punishment) of merely communicating ideas. How don't you see how very problematic that is is just beyond me.

Argue in actual good faith please.

Correct, and what is that law?

Spoiler

(Actually, semi-correct. The Florida education board claimed it was inconsistent with that law, but 1) public statements by the Florida authorities about the course's content appear to be inaccurate, 2) the law may be unsafe (see below), 3) whether it really does break the law is untested, 4) the Florida Education board is stuffed full of deeply ideological political appointees.)

I think you need to check it out more carefully, especially in the context that two provisions of it (covering universities and private businesses) have already been temporarily blocked in the courts on grounds of harm to free speech. Also start having a think about the "Don't Say Gay" law, recently expanded to apply to the entire school system.



Decided by who - Ron De Santis, the Florida legislature and their crony-filled Education Board?

Do you not understand free speech at all? Back in the USSR people were also free to say anything the government permitted them to.

That's why there's checks and balances. I'm for the spirit of most of these laws people are so vehemently against, but I have said previously and fully admit I don't like the vagueness of most of them. But that's a problem with most bills/laws yet you guys only pick on the "right" laws vs the "left" laws that have the same issues.

Again, you point fingers at the right for doing the same things the left does. You just don't mind the left doing it because it's your team. Why is it so awful that republicans put conservative judges on SCOTUS when you'd never complain about democrats putting liberal judges on SCOTUS? It's not that I'm for loading courts or bad appointments, I'm against that obviously. It's that you guys use such arguments to prove the right is bad when the left does the very same things.

So it's not "bad full stop". You recognise exceptions.

You and the rest of us disagree on where those exceptions lie. So here's an idea: rather than just screaming that everyone else must be "against free speech", try to acknowledge that everyone here is accepting of free speech with certain parameters and exceptions, and look at what they are.

From where I'm standing, an exception that prevents dickheads from spreading libelous conspiracy theories about the survivors of massacres is justifiable. Whereas an exception that prevents teachers from discussing the history of racism or talking to kids about sexuality even when the kids ask, is dangerous and authoritarian.

I posted in here because some is actually for not allowing people to talk and share ideas. And you guys are trying to be like "well, you're not for free speech because you for not allowing someone to say 'fuck' to a 5 year old" trying to get your "gotcha" moment.

So are you actually for people being suppressed from saying and sharing ideas? Because that's what this thread is about.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Again, you point fingers at the right for doing the same things the left does. You just don't mind the left doing it because it's your team. Why is it so awful that republicans put conservative judges on SCOTUS when you'd never complain about democrats putting liberal judges on SCOTUS? It's not that I'm for loading courts or bad appointments, I'm against that obviously. It's that you guys use such arguments to prove the right is bad when the left does the very same things.

Yes, we're mad that conservatives get Supreme Court picks. Never mind the context of the last few, it's just that they get picks *at all*, not having anything to do with the slimy, intensely political, hypocritical, and damaging way they got them

Ignore all context and reduce down to the base components. Why be mad at somebody withdrawing money from the bank just because he was shouting "PUT EVERYTHING IN THE BAG OR I KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU", you hypocrites? Everybody takes money out of the banks

 

[Silvanus]

I posted in here because some is actually for not allowing people to talk and share ideas. And you guys are trying to be like "well, you're not for free speech because you for not allowing someone to say 'fuck' to a 5 year old" trying to get your "gotcha" moment.

No, someone else simply recognises a different exception to you. You both recognise exceptions. Neither of you believe "stopping speech is bad full stop"; it's just that you pretended to.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Ever notice how every thread that Phoenixmgs sticks his big snout in becomes a black hole that sucks in everyone's brain cells?

Just some friendly advice; maybe save your brain cells for getting drunk, huh.

 

[Absent]

You've had parents be able to take their kids out of certain classes forever if they didn't want their kid exposed to certain subject matter. And, yes, saying something to anyone isn't against the law but you can be fired for saying stuff that is deemed inappropriate whether it's saying something to a kid at school or just saying something at a regular job.

You're acting like if you get me to agree that saying "bomb" on an airplane is something that you should get in trouble for somehow proves I'm not for free speech. This is just asinine form of arguing. Yes, me agreeing to saying bomb at an airport is bad or not being allowed to share state secrets is akin to you being for limiting what ideas people can discuss. When I posted in here to begin with because you are actually for making it against the law (or at least some kind of enforceable punishment) of merely communicating ideas. How don't you see how very problematic that is is just beyond me.

Argue in actual good faith please.

Oh nice. So now "absolute free speech" is *checks notes* absolute free expression of 1) "ideas" 2) when children aren't around. And the rest isn't limitation to absolute free speech because hey free speech is absolute.

Of course you have a super clear definition of what is and isn't an "idea", right ? Like, defamation, libel, slander, disinformation are "ideas", are not "ideas" ? Appeals to violence are "ideas", are not "ideas" ? They are when they target an individual, or aren't but are when they target a group? A well funded, massive campaign randomly declaring that you are a proven pedophile is okay in front of the law, because hey free speech so any law against it is dictatorial? A well funded, massive campaign urging people to kick your ass because you're a disgusting menace to society should be legally unhindered ? Or ? How does it work, is there another obvious "free speech doesn't apply to this, duh" that we are missing?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Come on dude, take care of your brain, it's precious.

Am giving it 5 months, tops, till they start bringing up "the jews", from observing other similar trajectories elsewhere in the field. Just keeping an eye on progress to see how wrong I hopefully am.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Ever notice how every thread that Phoenixmgs sticks his big snout in becomes a black hole that sucks in everyone's brain cells?

I keep the site's crazies on ignore.

 

[BrawlMan]

You don't, you just throw things out thinking it's an auto-win to a debate/argument.

Speaking about yourself again. You are not good at this.