Yes free speech is not absolute.
As they always say, you can’t scream FIRE in a crowded theatre
Also you can’t threaten to kill the president. Or probably anyone else.
There are limitations, which the Supreme Court has established through rulings.
To avoid the anti-debating ToSs on CC (hopefully, those can’t be challenged as a “public square” argument…otherwise, our beloved supermods might be out of a job), I shall agree to disagree.
Instead of getting the political arguments trying to make private actors into First Amendment-subjected actors, I’ll leave with you this: Trump vs Twitter: A Battle Over Free Speech? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
Actually, it’s law you mean not debate. If you need to have the last word, maybe talk about free speech rather than Trump and link to an article about law since free speech is law. Alway was, always has been under the Constitution. Founding fathers probably had folks who wanted to shut down debate so they made it law. Hard for some to follow. Always has been something in dozens of SCOTUS cases.
Hmmm…that one is vastly overstated and wrong as a matter of constitutional law. As often indicated, I am very lazy, so I will cite this article from Wikipedia. That concept was, in principal part, overruled by SCOTUS’s 1969 Brandenberg case, to the extent it was ever law to begin with: Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia.
I totally agree with you that there are NUMEROUS impermissible speech: deceptive advertising, stock manipulation contrivances, defamation, threats, etc.
No need to have the “last word”. As noted, there are NUMEROUS examples of constitutionally permissible limitations to “free speech”.
ETA: Feel free to post the known rulings abrogating all of these clearly accepted limitations on “free speech”. There are clear restrictions without any doubt.
1 Like
Think I am going with known rulings vs. the CC thread re: Constitutional law. Wikipedia isn’t a source. But it can be entertaining. Over and out.
Linked above is a 10 point scale of how self made one was by Forbes magazine. Obviously, it is not the only possible scale of self madeness, but it does recognize that there are gradations other than self made versus not self made.
“This idea that private businesses can do whatever they want isn’t law.”
Indeed, as Elon said today in his Ted talk: he supports free speech that is allowed by law. (I forgot the exact wording so didn’t quote.)
GAFAT (google, Apple FB, Amazon, Twitter) has been running the country for a while. Why not have a change of management at one and at least make the info a bit more balanced.
5 Likes
In what way?
1 Like
Well, for starters…not banning the Babylonbee for their article on ‘man of the year’
3 Likes
May be overstated - but I’m watching Law & Order, episode titled Human Flesh Search Engine - and this just came up - and the judge said, in this case, the theatre wasn’t crowded.
I didn’t use Wikipedia when I wrote what I did.
Nor did I use Law & Order - but if you don’t buy wikipedia, perhaps you would Law & Order as a source…I mean, they have researchers
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=wmborj
No further comments, except I am HAPPY to charge my hourly rate for more detailed info.
ETA: This is pretty basic.
What is even MORE basic, which I guess is the fundamental point, is that there are numerous exceptions to “free speech” as outlined above. I am also a “First Amendment absolutist”.
However, as a realist, one cannot lie under oath (i.e. perjury), threaten, defame (e.g., slander or libel), or deceive (e.g., violate US and state consumer protection laws) etc.
There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt about that.
2 Likes
Well then he supports Twitter’s current policies on acceptable speech, since they’re completely legal. If Twitter doesn’t want to support lies, hate speech, racism, and conspiracy theories, that is Twitter exercising its own right to free speech.
5 Likes
I think Elon would agree with you in that a company like Twitter can exercise its free speech rights in whatever way it sees fit. (But if Elon buys the company, he can change the way those rights are exercised, all the while adhering to local laws.)
2 Likes
Elon seems to be speaking freely enough to get sued, yet again!:
ETA: I hope Elon College is paying CC, indirectly via Google, a fortune for AdWords! So many references to Mr. Musk bring up the Elon link! Elon (the person) might be better off donating a gigantic building etc to his near namesake institution than stuff like buying Twitter!
2 Likes
The funny thing is - when he got busted by the SEC for saying the Saudis might take Tesla private at $420 - and at the time the stock was $240 or so if I recall.
I’m sure the Saudis wish they bought in as it’s now over $900 and that’s without the stock split of a few years ago. So t’s multiples of that.
Maybe he lied - but there was no damage as anyone who bought and sold are the luckiest people ever!!
With a business model entirely built on government regulation who then turns around and complains about government regulation.
3 Likes
Sticking it to the “man” gotta love that.
My understanding is at least one key Twitter shareholder from Saudi royalty said “no” to this deal": Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal rejects Elon Musk's Twitter takeover bid - tweet | Reuters
those shorting Twitter stock have a legit claim of damages by his withholding the filing of his purchases exceeding 4.9%…the SEC will likely fine him $100k, but that is peanuts in comparison to the gain on his shares.