ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Facebook incidents , Facebook issues , free speech issues , internet incidents

Reply
Old 19th April 2019, 12:07 PM   #41
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,618
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
No, it couldn't. 'Say' is not 'be' no matter how you dance around. Xkcd is saying that you can't claim free speech when you aren't allowed to use someone's venue to speak, not that you somehow can't claim free speech (?) when someone bars you for what you are (race). What exactly do drinking fountains have to do with speech?
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:11 PM   #42
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,826
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
Why do you think race and speech are equivalent?
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:13 PM   #43
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,419
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "
Nope, that's wrong; read TragicMonkey's latest post on this thread to see why.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:30 PM   #44
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,471
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
Yeah that's the same.

We hit the "You're oppressing me by not letting me oppress other people!" stage quicker and quicker each discussion.

Now let's have a 20 page discussion where we explain the "Paradox of Tolerance" to people as if it's not something we've already been over.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:37 PM   #45
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,339
The problem seems to be that 70% of people are stupid enough to get their news from Facebook and Google, or hang out on either site at all. If that number is really true it explains a lot.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:37 PM   #46
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,560
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
"Wolves of Odin" could be fairly innocuous site, for instance, by somebody who is interesting in Viking History.

... or: Prankster buys Wolves of Odin domain, turns it into furry fan site.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:38 PM   #47
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Facebook is a private organization so for the most part they get to decide who gets to use their platform.....
Isn't that their free speech right?

Sure would be nice if Fox News was sued for denying free speech to sane people.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:41 PM   #48
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not a house. It's not even equivalent to a house. Houses are privileged, even compared to most physical private property.

That's a dodge.
No one is dodging you, Zig, but it does appear you are dodging addressing FB's freedom of speech because you don't like how big and influential they are.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:42 PM   #49
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,119
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
The problem seems to be that 70% of people are stupid enough to get their news from Facebook and Google, or hang out on either site at all. If that number is really true it explains a lot.
Where do you get news from?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:46 PM   #50
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,706
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Thankfully yes. By a betting site.
Now I'm imagining racist horses, posting nasty things about other horses on the internet. "Appaloosa? More like Crappaloosa! Heh heh heh!"
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:47 PM   #51
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you don't care about the criteria they use to discriminate, then stop hiding behind claims of racism.

And I care what Facebook does because of the disproportionate power they hold, and the way they routinely violate user privacy. The combination is dangerous.
You would love what they are doing with that domination in China.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:48 PM   #52
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
I'd be fascinated if someone could satisfactorily write a rule that would ban e.g. Mein Kampf, but not the Koran without special pleading.

And that's my problem with these kinds of bans: they're bound to be arbitrary at some point. I know Facebook is a private entity, but that's not the point. Of course they have the right to ban whomever they like, but should they?
Yeah, they should.

I would hope they are also banning ISIS and like-minded groups.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:51 PM   #53
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,471
I'm totally lost here. If an organization become more powerful and influential is become more vitally important that racist have access to it? That seems backwards to me.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:54 PM   #54
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
Segregation itself was addressed for many important reasons. While people argued private property, laws banning segregation superseded those property rights in that case.

If someone wants to deprive FB of their rights, it has to be for more than free speech for hate groups.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 12:57 PM   #55
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Where do you get news from?
Forums.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:24 PM   #56
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 464
Facebook execs have made a business decision about who they will and won't allow to use their platform.

They have no obligation to abide by the US constitution's 1st amendment. They're not a government controlled/endorsed/supported entity.

The internet is bursting at the seams with far too many self-entitled people assuming they have the 'right' to liberally use a free internet service in any way they damn well please.

Newsflash to all the speshul little cupcakes out there: You don't have that right.

End of story.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:27 PM   #57
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No one is dodging you, Zig, but it does appear you are dodging addressing FB's freedom of speech because you don't like how big and influential they are.
Have I called for legal sanction against Facebook? No, I haven't. So what the hell are you getting your panties in a bunch for? Do you not like me using my freedom of speech to criticize them?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:28 PM   #58
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
They have no obligation to abide by the US constitution's 1st amendment. They're not a government controlled/endorsed/supported entity.
I don't think anyone has argued that they've violated the 1st amendment. But the concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:37 PM   #59
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think some of us are conflating two separate things: being something and behaving some way. A store cannot refuse to serve customers who are a particular ethnicity. It certainly can refuse to serve customers who are shouting loudly. As I understand it, Facebook is disallowing pages for groups that advocate behaviors but isn't then deactivating the personal pages of all those belonging to the group regardless of what's on those pages. So Grandma Confederacy is still on Facebook talking about her rich heritage and Paula Deen recipes, but her group page for Belle No: League of Southern Ladies for Repealing Emancipation will no longer be up. She's not being discriminated against for being what she is, she's being prevented from doing what she does.
Are the repercussions as you explain above applied the same for closed or open groups?
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:41 PM   #60
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't think anyone has argued that they've violated the 1st amendment. But the concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment.

In relation to a privately owned business? No it's not.

Free speech does not apply, at all. Ever. A business operation is under no obligation to allow people to freely use that privately owned soapbox to screech upon. Ever.

Even if that business's entire business model is, in actual fact, a soapbox.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:42 PM   #61
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,471
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Have I called for legal sanction against Facebook? No, I haven't. So what the hell are you getting your panties in a bunch for? Do you not like me using my freedom of speech to criticize them?
The only bunched panties are on you. The rest of us are fine with the racists not getting a soapbox. We're trying to unbunch your panties.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:43 PM   #62
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
In relation to a privately owned business? No it's not.

Free speech does not apply, at all. Ever. A business operation is under no obligation to allow people to freely use that privately owned soapbox to screech upon. Ever.

Even if that business's entire business model is, in actual fact, a soapbox.
You really don't understand the concept of free speech. Note that I said concept, not law. Not everything is codified in laws.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:44 PM   #63
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,988
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But the concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment.
Indeed, and in ways not often appreciated. Any democratic freedom is a political freedom. Political freedoms are extensive to all in democracy because of democracy's bedrock principal, political equality. Without recognition of an equal voice in making and standing before the law, then there is no freedom, only reserved privileges. There are many arguments that can be made from this important qualifying distinction regarding current and traditional discourse, one being that on the left, dropping the political qualifier leads to excesses of one kind, and on the right, dropping the qualifier for equality leads to others, mostly of a deadlier nature.

The idiocy or malice, take your pick, has gone on for centuries, citing supposed differences among ethnicities or genders to justify the denial of choice and voice, when those differences are irrelevant. (No, not even Neanderthal genes give a leg up).

But to the point: speech that directly denies or seeks to suppress political equality does not deserve protection, as it denies the very foundation of the freedom it claims to do so.

Game over.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:44 PM   #64
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Have I called for legal sanction against Facebook? No, I haven't. So what the hell are you getting your panties in a bunch for? Do you not like me using my freedom of speech to criticize them?
Okay, backpedaling then.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:45 PM   #65
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The only bunched panties are on you.
That's demonstrably not true.

Quote:
The rest of us are fine with the racists not getting a soapbox.
And you're under the delusion that it will only be the racists being denied the soapboxes. Which is also demonstrably not true.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:47 PM   #66
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,471
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You really don't understand the concept of free speech. Note that I said concept, not law. Not everything is codified in laws.
Well that's even worse. That means you think racists have moral and intellectual protection, not legal protection.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:47 PM   #67
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Okay, backpedaling then.
When you present a straw man, and I point out that it's a straw man, that's not backpedaling on my part.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 01:57 PM   #68
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You really don't understand the concept of free speech. Note that I said concept, not law. Not everything is codified in laws.

I'm not talking about laws, I'm addressing your "concept of free speech is broader than the constitution" comment.

Yes, the concept of free speech is broader in terms of society as a whole.

But it is not, however, a broadly applied concept in terms of individual business entities, their operations, nor their administrative policies.

Period.



So I'll say it again for clarity's sake:

Quote:
In relation to a privately owned business? No it's not.

Free speech does not apply, at all. Ever. A business operation is under no obligation to allow people to freely use that privately owned soapbox to screech upon. Ever.

Even if that business's entire business model is, in actual fact, a soapbox.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 02:00 PM   #69
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well that's even worst. That means you think racists have moral and intellectual protection, not legal protection.
It isn't the racists that need protection. It's the concept of freedom of speech. If you only want to protect speech you agree with, you don't believe in freedom of speech. You cannot have freedom of speech without extending it to everyone, including the racists. You do not extend it to them for their benefit, you do so for yours. "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" The idea applies here too, even if the law does not.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 02:07 PM   #70
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It isn't the racists that need protection. It's the concept of freedom of speech. If you only want to protect speech you agree with, you don't believe in freedom of speech. You cannot have freedom of speech without extending it to everyone, including the racists. You do not extend it to them for their benefit, you do so for yours. "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" The idea applies here too, even if the law does not.

Again: The concept of free speech does not apply to a business entity.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 02:12 PM   #71
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
Again: The concept of free speech does not apply to a business entity.
Of course it does. Property rights may conflict with freedom of speech, and those property rights may properly win, but the concept still applies, even if it isn't the only or most important concern.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 02:35 PM   #72
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course it does. Property rights may conflict with freedom of speech, and those property rights may properly win, but the concept still applies, even if it isn't the only or most important concern.

Wrong.

A business does not have to let people "do free speech" carte blanche. Ever.

A business can boot you out the door because they don't like what's coming out of your mouth. A business can boot you off their website because they don't like what's coming out of your keyboard mouth.

Physical, tangible property geography need not apply.

There is no 'free speech' in business operations. There is no 'free speech' in business policies. There is no 'free speech' in business practice.

Businesses have absolutely no connection whatsoever to this "concept of free speech" thing.

Free speech to a business is a non-concept. Free speech has zero relevance to a business's existence.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips

Last edited by AnonyMoose; 19th April 2019 at 02:38 PM.
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 02:58 PM   #73
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,419
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
But to the point: speech that directly denies or seeks to suppress political equality does not deserve protection, as it denies the very foundation of the freedom it claims to do so.

Game over.
But that doesn't even matter; people are arguing about the wrong thing.

The racists' speech is protected. That protection just doesn't include an obligation on Facebook's part to host it, nor does Facebook's decision to stop hosting it mean that the racists don't have "free speech" anymore.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 02:58 PM   #74
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Just say that you don't believe in free speech. It's shorter, and more accurate.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 03:04 PM   #75
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,419
I think free speech is a tremendously important right for the citizens of any country to have.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 03:05 PM   #76
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Just say that you don't believe in free speech. It's shorter, and more accurate.

Uh huh.

I was waiting to see how long it would take before you pulled out one of the fallacy cards.

So predictable.


Have a nice day.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 03:15 PM   #77
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,368
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
Not one of xkcd's better efforts.
I dunno, it does hit the point quite succinctly.
Not that it's right of course.

Last edited by p0lka; 19th April 2019 at 03:16 PM.
p0lka is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 03:54 PM   #78
Ron Obvious
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yeah, they should.

I would hope they are also banning ISIS and like-minded groups.
So would I. That's easy pickings. How about an organization that advocates for Sharia law to be the law of the land?
Ron Obvious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 04:03 PM   #79
Ron Obvious
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
I dunno, it does hit the point quite succinctly.
Not that it's right of course.
I'm a fan of xkcd, but this particular comic is neither witty nor insightful. Instead of a free exchange of ideas, it seems to subscribe to the notion of ideas being a tested against popular acceptance.

I'm an immigrant, but I'm a huge fan of the 1st amendment. I didn't really realise how rare the concept of free speech is before. Free speech protections are only needed for unpopular ideas. Saying that I like puppies and kittens doesn't require protection. Galileo saying the earth moves around the sun instead of the other way about does (or did).

I'd never ban a flat earther just because I consider their ideas objectively moronic.
Ron Obvious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2019, 04:15 PM   #80
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,311
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
So would I. That's easy pickings. How about an organization that advocates for Sharia law to be the law of the land?
That would depend entirely on whether the group promoted violence to further their cause.

It's not defined by Muslim fear-mongering.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.