Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

374

  1. Do you think everyone should have the right to say anything? If not, what are the restrictions?

  2. Do you think the owner of a speech platform should be able to censor a user's speech?

Trying to puzzle through this issue. I'm not asking what's currently legal or constitutional - more just how do you think things should be?

1. Do you think everyone should have the right to say anything? If not, what are the restrictions? 2. Do you think the owner of a speech platform should be able to censor a user's speech? Trying to puzzle through this issue. I'm not asking what's currently legal or constitutional - more just how do you think things should be?

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

"Freedom" of speech is a liberal masonic doctrine. Hear me out. Freedom of speech is good when you are ruled by jews because they want to lock you up for speaking the truth, but if your country is run by Christians, then freedom of speech is not good because you have jews who use this to peddle pornography (this is how they legalized porn) and all sorts of satanic evil.

What a liberal sees as freedom is not really freedom but actually enslavement to the devil. God made laws for us to be free from enslavement of the devil. You see Christ is King. Not some talmudic antichrist jew who wants to destroy us. I follow Christ's laws.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Certainly "free speech" is a concept invented by man, which has been twisted to all sorts of evil ends. But the converse, i.e. suppression of speech, is rarely done for a good and decent reason. In other words, we tolerate subversive and evil speech so we don't have to tolerate an oppressive and evil government. I guess that might not be working out so well right now.

[–] • 0 pt

I think suppressing the lies of the jews is a very good and decent reason to suppress speech. If we have an oppressive and evil government freedom of speech doesn't really matter. Look how well it's working out for us now? The constitutions says freedom of speech, but that's obviously not the case when people can get fired from their jobs or get blackballed by companies etc. The government won't defend our right to say anything because private businesses don't have to enforce this right. Plus, the government can twist the rules and say there are limits to free speech which they have. This all goes back to a Godless government. When you separate Church and state you end up with a government that believes they are God and they decide what is right and wrong.

[–] • 1 pt

Free speech is not negotiable, but it also doesn't need our protection. The people destroyed due to censorship need our protection. Fighting for free speech just makes that job easier.

Speech will always get out. It is inevitable. This fact is easily proven by the knowledge of the most totalitarian and repressive regimes in history are known, because they could not contain information. In fact, the very act of censoring speech increases it's value. This is due to the nature of black markets. In other words, the more something is illegal or controlled, then the more precious it becomes. Systems will always evolve the instruments of their own destruction, so any attempt to restrict a thing makes that thing more abundant do to the increase in value.

No. I don't fight for free speech because speech needs to be protected. Rather, I fight for free speech because people need protection from morons in power who's first inclination to retain deminishing power is to oppress the weak, vulnerable, and deplorables by means of censorship and demonization.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I like this. It's not about allowing speech - it's about disallowing censorship.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

No. It’s about protecting people and self determination . Free speech is the first line of defense against genocide and slavery.

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt
[–] • 0 pt

  1. Yes, but not free from those that choose to retaliate.

  2. As they own those "platforms" (not a legal definition) they are free to do as they wish.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )
  1. Yes, none.
  2. This is trickier. There are many platforms dedicated to a specific topic, or with specific subs for them. I can see posts being removed for being off topic. On fully open platforms, no, not unless outright illegal. In any case, I think removed comments anywhere should have an option to view what said content was, as a defense against power-hungry moderators.
[–] • 0 pt

Do you think everyone should have the right to say anything?

YES! but freedom comes with RESPONSIBILITY - the responsibility to not hurt others (and i'm not talking about fee-fees)

Do you think the owner of a speech platform should be able to censor a user's speech?

YES! absolutely - but i think it depends on the type of service - ALL of mainstream social media is ignoring their own legal agreements and censoring based on a clear political agenda - if a service is going to censor, then it should not label itself as a free speech platform (here's looking at you BitChute and a few others who claim to be free speech)

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

If you're right then BitChute should have some breach of contract lawsuits on its hands.

[–] • 0 pt

In general I would place restrictions on speech which causes the sort of damage any other crime would cause. If someone loses business because of libel or slander it's as bad as theft. The man who incites a mob to violence should be prosecuted along with the mob he incited.

As for a private platform, the owner and the users should be bound by the terms of their agreement, and sites should not be allowed to build off of false advertisements. Whatever rules are agreed to need to be enforced consistently. If someone set's up a site and are clear on what is and isn't allowed, anyone who doesn't want to be bound by the rules needs to stay off the site. If the site owner breaks their own terms or puts out misleading advertisements, they should be held accountable.

[–] • 0 pt

Private ownership means private moderation. You aren't entitled to a private service. The owner decides what is allowed, full stop. If you disagree, then the baker should bake the cake, right?

[–] • 0 pt

DEBATE REQUIRES freedom of speech. THere is NO actionable or bannable SPEECH. You hear/see a threat? YOU can investigate further (for ACTIONS to fullfill a threat). But a THREAT is NOT criticism or "offensive" language or DISLIKE of some individual OR group OR everyone. I don't know of ANY but the MOST stupid deranged people who would openly threaten a person (emotion). and ON the internet, the SAFETY is OBVIOUS if you are ANONYMOUS and even if you're not. Some people express themselves more emotionally (eg niggers). Except niggers don't hang out on line (in general) they LOOT and act like monkies in PUBLIC. OKAY to SHOOT them in the HEAD.

[–] • 0 pt
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes; if it is clear it is not considered a "free speech platform". The stupid will think I am being contradictory; but you can stand in the street and say anything you want, you cannot inside my home.
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

If we don't like what they say, we should remove them.

Their speech is just a signal to us.

Load more (2 replies)