Why is the left afraid of free speech?

Why is the left afraid of free speech?

Attached: cv8451y2zxv81.jpg (640x640, 38.07K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Why is the right incapable of telling (or even, apparently, discerning) the truth?

Leftist ideology can not survive in an arena of free speech. It must suppress all opposing views less it be exposed for the insanity that it is

When you ban lies, in an attempt at promoting moral virtue, you also ban inconvenient truths by simply labeling them as lies. That's Soviet reasoning, and is the reason it collapsed.

A world where people have the freedom to lie and spread those lies is paradoxically better than a world where only approved truths are allowed to be uttered.

It's like a call-and-response at a really boring Anglican church, every day.

Why does everyone believe Elon is some pariah of free speech? Dude gags people whenever he can.


He just does ok!

Martin Tripp. Musk damn near tried to get the guy killed by cops making false claims about him being an office shooter type.

1) No one is banning lies. They just demote them and put disclaimers.
2) Slippery slope argument is nice, but it's not what's happening in the first place
Why aren't you guys angry with the blackbox algorithms that these services all use? You know, the ones the techno-libertarians are so proud of and keep them so seekrit.

How come the right wants to end all covid restrictions, except one at the border?




Motherfucker unabashedly wants to be king, and wageslave incels eat it the fuck up.
Anyone dumb enough to think "Free Speech" applies to anyone who doesn't agree with Elon is going to be in for a really obvious surprise...

Why was Alex Jones banned from every social media platform?

Some more


Violating terms of service on a privately owned platform. Not rocket science.

>But in the end, Tripp came out on the losing side. The payment is part of a proposed settlement to a lawsuit filed by Tesla in 2018 alleging that Tripp hacked the electric car company’s system and transferred “gigabytes” of data to third parties. As part of the agreement, Tripp admitted to violating laws related to trade secrets and computer crimes when he told a Business Insider reporter that Tesla was wasting a significant amount of raw materials during production of its Model 3.

>Tripp also agreed to pay $25,000 to Tesla for continuing to reveal information about the company, despite being ordered to stop by a judge. Tripp had been publishing a large number of documents and videos online, including many under a confidentiality order in the case. In August, Tripp fired his lawyers and set about representing himself in the case. It was also revealed that a Tesla short seller, The Funicular Fund, was financing Tripp’s legal defense.

I think there's a fundamental disagreement about what free speech constitutes between the left and the right.

The left thinks that any speech that can result in "harm" should be illegal. The problem there is that things like mental and emotional damage are immeasurable. You can't say that calling someone a nigger cost that nigger $10,000, or did any actual bodily harm, for example. Similarly, "you did a bad job" or "you did a good job" have a vague and nebulous sense of profit or damage. Is someone better or worse off in the face of hateful criticism? How do you prove it? What's the difference between damage as a result of speech and a person's individual failures?

Right-wing people agree that violent threats aren't free speech, on the condition that they're imminently actionable, but that opinions, even vile opinions, are free speech because the impact of such speech is arbitrary. Violation of NDAs and confidentiality actually have measurable damage, so have legal penalties ascribed to them.

Who determines what a lie is?

He probably isn't, it's not hard to find an improvement to twitter's current leadership though

What term?

Based common sense poster

It's so simple to ask yourself "what if the opposing political party did this?" If the answer is "I would be outraged" it's not good practice. What if republicans banned women who have had abortions off of Twitter and other social medias? What if Trump had won the election and democrats stormed the capital? This isn't sports, this is a nation, and the side doesn't matter as long as we aren't giving power to people or institutions that can abuse it.


get the fuck off of my fucking website

Liability concerns. When you go around using actionable language in a litigious culture, expect people who would have to pay for your mistakes to drop you like a hit rock.

What's the distinction between a privately owned platform and a public square?

Bullying, harassment, inciting violence, spreading false information...pretty much all the terms around content you put onto those privately owned platforms. It's amazing how the free market works.

Oddly enough doxxing people like Taylor Lorenz doesn't get you banned though. It's almost as though the rules only apply to one side.

If you genuinely need to ask that then any explanation I give you will probably need 30 slides drawn in crayon.

You said people weren't being silenced for lying?

>When you ban lies, you're actually banning the truth.
That's not how it works in the real world. Grow up.

it's not about virtue
it's about not letting people fuck up the country by spreading retarded horse shit that millions of low iq people will swallow without questioning

Attached: 1637465133400.jpg (1280x1920, 218.65K)

Oddly enough, cite some sources...

Al Gore, by snapping his fingers in time, behind an impenetrable curtain

that isn't thier choice to make you sperg

Name a single right wing political commentator that hasn't had a tweet deleted or their account temporarily/permanently suspended. Elon Musk is no savior, just a guy that is slightly better. That's why 8 million of you voted for dementia Joe, right?

>Sounds like he doesn't know

I would say that any forum or medium where your content is universally visible would constitute a public square. And barring people from a public square because of the things they have to say is a violation of free speech, and the people who do so are violating an individual's constitutional rights.

You're pathetic

yes it is

Attached: 1639738083817.jpg (564x845, 87.64K)

There are literally thousands of bot accounts created 24/7 that end up on twitter. Only so much can be done and in order of most visible. So a public figure like Alex Jones misusing the platform will get noticed before random user #121454897456 does.

>I don't like what that person has to say, regardless of its truth or validity. I'll just call it a lie and ban them as misinformation.

If you think that doesn't happen, then you're the child.

Are you says she didn't? JFC that's just pathetic.

Conservatives and fascists hate free speech also. Free speech stems from classical liberal/libertarian ideals.

I mean cite sources those accounts weren't banned or had any moderated action taken against them.

>Actionable language
Yeah unlike all those protesters telling everyone to kill cops that are still on twitter

Unfortunately nobody fucking cares about libertarians or liberals you faggot

He wasn't silenced. He was told what would happen if he continued defaming people on the privately owned platform, he continued to do it, he got the consequence he was informed he would get. Pretty simple, really. The ball was in his court, and he decided consequences didn't apply to him. But apparently they did... And since courts even in TEXAS agree, it looks like the sites were right about his liability risk.

The party that wanted people to be forcibly vaccinated and is constantly censoring "hateful" speech *coughcrimestatistics* should really be called something other than the "liberal" party.

Sounds like you're retarded.

So banned or moderated makes things untrue? That's like saying only illegal things are immoral.

It literally doesn't. Open your eyes and actually pay attention to the world around you instead of just believing all the propaganda you're being spoonfed.

and this
don't really match up. You can define TOS that allow you to ban people you don't like or just disagree with.

Gets worse the more the definitions of words change. Just don't ever side with anyone who says, in any form, "you can't say 'X.'"

Nah lefties just don’t want lies to be running freely for idiots like the right to gobble up. Ei: covid, don’t say gay, book burning, sucking putins cock, etc.

So you don't have a right to privacy, right? The government can just look at your internet history whenever they want, yeah?

Oh, wait, you have 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, so they'd actually need a reason ahead of time to do so. Well that's good.

then read Fucking retard.

>Don't believe the propaganda
>Spouts blatant propaganda


You're not arguing in good faith. We're done.

Unfortunately twitter is not a private platform

Hunter Biden's Laptop.

ITT: Conseracucks display their unassailable ignorance when it comes to the laws of a nation they claim to be patriotic about.

Man the right love doing mental gymnastics. Is he sleepy or a dictator? Faggot

Keep running in circle and claim you won a race. That's some fine autism.

>You're pathetic
IATSE wants to know when you're going to pay your union dues

If you actually believe that "don't say gay" propaganda you're actually retarded.

That bill was to bar teachers from teaching about specific sexual practices to kids from kindergarten to third grade. If you think 7 year olds need to know about how gay and trans couples get down and dirty, you're a fucking pedophile.

>don't say gay

What do you call someone who wants to talk to other people's children about sex?

Kim Jong Il was a fucking moron, but he still inflicted tremendous evils on his people.

What part of my comment wasn't in good faith? Isn't it important to observe how Twitter bans disproportionately affect conservatives?

Yes there should be references to moms or dads

Yes there should be no references to moms or dads

They are banning even truths like thr hunter Biden laptop story and they are manipulating trends.


Unfortunately sex offenders typically don't ask for a guardians approval

Never vote for hunter!

>Listen to diverse opinions.
Listen to opinions that exactly echo mine.

Yes they shouldnt teach what moms or dads are to young students

>Yeah unlike all those protesters telling everyone to kill cops that are still on twitter
They're still using that language? Because far as I know that gets anyone a time out and builds toward a permaban. Hell I had a liberal friend on Facebook that got three day banned for quoting a passage in the bible about killing Canaanites.

Fucking pedos

Attached: 20220425_163427.jpg (1080x878, 279.27K)

I seem to remember a lot of people getting banned for questioning the COVID narrative, or even just supplying their own opinion on it, like the fact that the vast majority of people who were hospitalized from it where over a certain age and weight.

A lot of those people were banned for saying things that were later confirmed as true, but didn't fit the narrative at the time.

Why not retard

Because that's a sexual orientation. Teaching young kids sex is for pedos remember

Wow weird I didn’t know 1 person who got banned who didn’t deserve it

Except that it is. You agree to rules, set up by the company. EVERYONE agrees to those rules during sign-up. Didn't you read them?
Do you just not understand what "Public" and "Private" mean?

Babylon Bee.

You can teach what a mom or dad is without explaining that penis goes into vagina. Also, not all things are the purview of the school to teach. Parents and guardians can teach that stuff. Teacher's purview falls within the elementary academic disciplines at those ages. They can cover sociology when the kids are old enough to think for themselves instead of being indoctrinated.

>that's why Soviet collapsed

sure thing, the 20 thousands other social, economical, military, political factors are not involved in its collapsed, censorship is the sole reason.

god I fucking hate you directional brains

It receives federal protections and funding, and is publicly traded. It's not a private platform.


Except when it's a Christian bakery sued because they don't want to make homo wedding cakes. Nice hypocrisy.

So you cant explain why someone has two moms or dads but can explain a mom and dad? Weird

Yes I agree kids should not learn about faggots and dykes. Learn where the term sexual orientation came from

Yeah and I don't know anyone that is racist so that's obviously a made up problem

Did the cake maker make them sign a ToS before taking their order?

You don't think a fundamental opposition to the truth might have been a primary contributor?

"The plane didn't crash, because Soviet planes don't crash."
"The reactor isn't melting down, because Soviet reactors don't melt down."
"There is no corruption in the Soviet Union, because Soviet leaders cannot be corrupt."

>A lot of those people were banned for saying things that were later confirmed as true, but didn't fit the narrative at the time

lol sure kid.

>Learn where the term sexual orientation came from
So being straight isnt a sexual orientation? Weird

Keep trying you might actually make sense one day.

Here's a trick:

"Teacher, I know a kid who says he has two dads. I thought a mommy and a daddy were needed to make a baby."
"Ask your parents."
"They won't tell me."
"Then I won't either."


Question, why do conservatives reject the vaccine bc their body, their choice, but are against abortions? Curious

Oh, let's see here... I believe there are some words your side uses about one demographic committing all of the crimes... It's on the tip of my tongue... What was it again?

So you are saying the cake makers didnt make their customers sign an agreement to what you can and cant do?

Why are you a shit posting faggot

Perfect world of ignorance

Try again

Ok groomer

Who coined the term sexual orientation?

They refused service, that exact sort of thing a ban is. They're a private company it should be their right, right?

Still waiting for the "truth" about that laptop. Any at all...

Now THAT is a bad faith argument. And completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You as a human reserve the right to lie. The teuth speakers just need to be better at being persuasive.

Look at adverts. They lie all the time.

Why is the right always projecting? You guys are obsessed with pedos. Curious

Because only being gay is a sexual orientation and not being straight? Fucking kek

Ever notice that when they lose it starts turning into a tranny hate thread

How did Alex Jones misuse twitter?

Did they have it written out that the customers signed?

The fact that it's legitimate, has real pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack, has emails that cast suspicion on Biden taking money from foreign governments, and the entire story was buried as Russian misinformation during the election despite now being verified as true, and despite being verified as true isn't being covered by any "neutral" media?

Yeah same way you have to tell a kid the truth about Santa if they ask, otherwise they'll never figure it out and live in ignorance forever

>The teuth speakers just need to be better at being persuasive.
you don't understand how the human brain is wired at all if you think that that would work

Keep harping on that stupid shit while being totally disingenuous. It makes your case look really fucking weak.

John Money.

Yeah they're are racists in the world and everyone should point and laugh at them for being morons. What is your point?

na liefties just want their lies to run freely and hate the truth.

>It’s legitimate
>according to Fox Brews

>Avoiding that being gay or bi or straight is a sexual orientation

Because when you can't argue against something or ridicule it, your only recourse is to silence it.
They can't debate and they can't meme, censorship is all they have.

>Now being verified as true
>at Newsmax

Right right because signing a ToS that outlines the rules doesnt mean anything

Why does the right hate america?

Are you deliberately being retarded?

"Make me a cake."
*lawsuit goes all the way to the supreme court because compelling speech is a violation of free speech*

"Let me speak on this free and publicly available platform."
"No/Only if you do so under these limitations, even though we're legally considered a state actor."
*Everything is as it should be*

You let someone else tell them? Like a their teacher? Cool

It doesn't when you selectively choose who is held to the standards.

It's simple. Learn to be a better public speaker. Happens all the time in business.

Attached: 1650943171453.png (1280x658, 537.68K)