Is it time to re-think free speech?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

One idea is to preserve free speech, with regard to the government, but to have rules that make it easier for private individuals to recover damages in situations where someone abuses those rights to cause personal harm. Like when wingnuts falsely claim that someone helped steal an election, have it be possible to recover attorneys fees and some statutory damages in those cases, rather than people just relying on difficult-to-prove actual damages, while bearing their own litigation costs.

oh stop it.

that's ridiculous bullshit.

we have slander and libel laws.

file a suit. or stfu.

[BartenderElite]

No. It is not time to "rethink" one of our most important and longstanding of our rights which have been "endowed by our creator." People get to say crap that Brandon fans dislike.

Sure thing. It's only "Brandon fans" who dislike violent extremist groups putting out all kinds of hate & inspiring despicable acts that harm our society as a whole.

That's only Brandon people, for sure. Good call.

[zymurgy]

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

This is not even a new problem before us - the same concerns you claim today were aired in the 1800's

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-truth/375171/

make no mistake - the fear has always been about losing control. It is what you fear - in that you can't control election outcomes. it is what the media fears as well

[Flash]

Trump wants to limit free speech. So does the right. Now you understand?

I sure do. And, based on some of the statements in this thread, so do some on the left like Bartender, Evince, Mina,...etc.

It is scary when both sides want to restrict speech because it is in our interest.

Being a fascist requires a lot more than just restricting speech--but, that is an element.

[BartenderElite]

This is not even a new problem before us - the same concerns you claim today were aired in the 1800's

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-truth/375171/

make no mistake - the fear has always been about losing control. It is what you fear - in that you can't control election outcomes. it is what the media fears as well

The thread has nothing to do w/ "election outcomes," or "Brandon" (as a previous poster was saying).

This is not a partisan issue.

[zymurgy]

The thread has nothing to do w/ "election outcomes," or "Brandon" (as a previous poster was saying).

This is not a partisan issue.

it is a whiny bitch issue - and is larkely partisan - in that snow flakes like you worry about speech

I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population

my link made similar claims in the 1800s about the telegraph

[BartenderElite]

it is a whiny bitch issue

I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population

my link made similar claims in the 1800s about the telegraph

Well, I don't think the telegraph is really comparable to the internet.

If you don't think the internet has changed us radically in just a couple of decades, this thread probably has no interest for you. I think it has the potential to make things very dystopian, very quickly.

[zymurgy]

Well, I don't think the telegraph is really comparable to the internet.

If you don't think the internet has changed us radically in just a couple of decades, this thread probably has no interest for you. I think it has the potential to make things very dystopian, very quickly.

it is comparable - communication that was greatly improved with technology.

the internet also lowered the barrier to entry - which is the crux of the matter. your control over the narrative is being removed - you only see it as bad because you like centralized power. I don't - so the internet is a blessing

[Damocles]

Sure thing. It's only "Brandon fans" who dislike violent extremist groups putting out all kinds of hate & inspiring despicable acts that harm our society as a whole.

That's only Brandon people, for sure. Good call.

Well, folks that don't like Brandon have to sit around listening to you spread misinformation about them and pretend that they are the same as the guy spreading racism.

What is a good call? It is to let folks disagree.. vociferously. You get to set the record straight, we get to set the record straight and both of us can hate all over the racists, but the reality is folks get to say stuff you disagree with and even stuff you think is wrong because they have a right to free speech. We will not be updating the constitution so the government has no power whatsoever to stop it from happening.

[BartenderElite]

Well, folks that don't like Brandon have to sit around listening to you spread misinformation about them and pretend that they are the same as the guy spreading racism.

What is a good call? It is to let folks disagree.. vociferously. You get to set the record straight, we get to set the record straight and both of us can hate all over the racists, but the reality is folks get to say stuff you disagree with and even stuff you think is wrong because they have a right to free speech. We will not be updating the constitution so the government has no power whatsoever to stop it from happening.

Can you cite the misinformation I have spread? Or the times I have pretended that they're the same as the guy spreading racism?

[Mina]

we have slander and libel laws.

We do indeed. But as they currently stand, they pose two obstacles to anyone thinking of suing for those things (at least anyone with modest means):

(1) Generally speaking, people bear the cost of their own litigation, even if they win.

(2) It can be very hard to prove what your actual damages are in a slander or libel situation, and courts are likely to decide on very low numbers in cases where the plaintiff isn't wealthy (since, in theory, any loss of earning power from being defamed has a low dollar figure, if your earning power was low to begin with).

Because of those two things, people can be in a situation where even if they win the lawsuit, they wind up worse off -- like spending a hundred thousand dollars to litigate, and only getting a few thousand dollars of damages when they win.

For the wealthy, that's a smaller issue, since they can afford even the most ridiculous of nuisance suits merely to inconvenience and impoverish their adversaries (e.g., Deven Nunes suing Twitter and a Twitter account holder over a satirical account purporting to be run by Nunes's cow). But for poorer people, such lawsuits are generally not a practical possibility, since they can't afford the legal expenses.

The reforms I'm talking about would address both prongs of that problem. It would allow those who are successful to recover reasonable legal expenses, in addition to actual damages, if they win, so that even poor people could sue with a contingency arrangement with the lawyers. And it would make it so that libeling or slandering someone, even someone with very modest earning potential, had a fixed minimum price tag associated with it, so that poorer people could hit back hard enough to create an incentive not to prey on them that way.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

We do indeed. But as they currently stand, they pose two obstacles to anyone thinking of suing for those things (at least anyone with modest means):

(1) Generally speaking, people bear the cost of their own litigation, even if they win.

(2) It can be very hard to prove what your actual damages are in a slander or libel situation, and courts are likely to decide on very low numbers in cases where the plaintiff isn't wealthy (since, in theory, any loss of earning power from being defamed has a low dollar figure, if your earning power was low to begin with).

Because of those two things, people can be in a situation where even if they win the lawsuit, they wind up worse off -- like spending a hundred thousand dollars to litigate, and only getting a few thousand dollars of damages when they win.

For the wealthy, that's a smaller issue, since they can afford even the most ridiculous of nuisance suits merely to inconvenience and impoverish their adversaries (e.g., Deven Nunes suing Twitter and a Twitter account holder over a satirical account purporting to be run by Nunes's cow). But for poorer people, such lawsuits are generally not a practical possibility, since they can't afford the legal expenses.

The reforms I'm talking about would address both prongs of that problem. It would allow those who are successful to recover reasonable legal expenses, in addition to actual damages, if they win, so that even poor people could sue with a contingency arrangement with the lawyers. And it would make it so that libeling or slandering someone, even someone with very modest earning potential, had a fixed minimum price tag associated with it, so that poorer people could hit back hard enough to create an incentive not to prey on them that way.

legal fees often get included.

not groundbreaking.

plus you're just an idiot.

[FreeSpeech1789]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

Yes we should censor the largest proliferators of disinformation in human history IE the left, start with banning the NYTs, CNN, MSNBC, etc, basically the entirety of the MSM and big tech that act as direct ministries of propaganda for the DNC and unelected permanent administrative state.

[PostmodernProphet]

Sure thing. It's only "Brandon fans" who dislike violent extremist groups putting out all kinds of hate & inspiring despicable acts that harm our society as a whole.
.

don't be silly.....its only the Brandon fans who are DOING it......

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Can you cite the misinformation I have spread? Or the times I have pretended that they're the same as the guy spreading racism?

you spend most of your time just denying things known to be true.