Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

  1. #21
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:20 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,213

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    During the last recession many businesses were deemed "too big to fail". IE: So big that if they were not bailed out it would constitute a crisis situation. Essentially requiring that special rules be made in order to save the country. Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech? For example and more specifically sites that are more often than not are used for conveying speech and expression such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc etc.

    The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.

    Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.

    Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.
    No one has free speech in any company, and companies can use their power over the media to suppress speech, but wars were fought and demonstrations formed long before big companies had any real power over the spread of news etc. So I'm sure I get your point.
    “The people do not want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  2. #22
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    04-22-18 @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    111

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    During the last recession many businesses were deemed "too big to fail". IE: So big that if they were not bailed out it would constitute a crisis situation. Essentially requiring that special rules be made in order to save the country. Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech? For example and more specifically sites that are more often than not are used for conveying speech and expression such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc etc.

    The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.

    Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.

    Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.
    Dynamically and well stated regarding the need to NOT restrict. There is another side of empowerment or the reasons for it that are untouched however.

    The Indigenous American spiritual people of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy, particularly the Seneca had a philosophical doctrine that laid out the sociocultural justifications of empowerment very well. Unfortunately the framers only touched on 30%, or one side of the reasoning for free speech in the Declaration of Independence (DOI) without even saying so, and Tory gold bought out enough peers to stop those other purposes or meanings from being even mentioned in the 1st Amendment.

    There are two sides. One with reasons for not limiting, another for empowering. There was the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" which was found through the practice of free speech between people. From that understanding could be created. From the understanding could come; foregiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    So it's clear the first 70% totally fits with the last 30% which is all that is stated in the DOI.

    Clearly a society has good reason to empower the reach of free speech, but the reasons need to be well defined with great positivity. Therein is reason to revise the first amendment so such purpose can manifest. Today such meanings will not be supported by any entities with the power to do so which represents an immense deprival of the people to great meaning.
    Last edited by ChrisABrown; 11-22-17 at 07:38 AM.

  3. #23
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    21,482

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Sort of related to this is the practice of some of the credit card companies to not allow funding or contributions to various organizations that are blacklisted. An example is WikiLeaks, and how one cannot contribute to their efforts by credit card. Censorship permeates society.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49,331

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    During the last recession many businesses were deemed "too big to fail". IE: So big that if they were not bailed out it would constitute a crisis situation. Essentially requiring that special rules be made in order to save the country. Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech? For example and more specifically sites that are more often than not are used for conveying speech and expression such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc etc.

    The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.

    Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.

    Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.
    Absolutely not. Targeting individual companies and having the government telling them how they may govern themselves with regards to their terms of service and content on their sites is not appropriate. The notion of free speech on the internet isn't whether or not facebook or youtube or google allows for something but whether or not a competitor can legitimately utilize the infrastructure to put forth a competitor. A combination of killing net neutrality while putting government crackdown on the remaining large popular sites would be a tag team approach to absolutely ****ing over the open internet.

  5. #25
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    83,322

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristaeus View Post
    Free speech is not unrestricted.
    Free speech is absoluted unrestricted and protected. Not all speech qualifies as free speech.
    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,528

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Absolutely not. Targeting individual companies and having the government telling them how they may govern themselves with regards to their terms of service and content on their sites is not appropriate. The notion of free speech on the internet isn't whether or not facebook or youtube or google allows for something but whether or not a competitor can legitimately utilize the infrastructure to put forth a competitor. A combination of killing net neutrality while putting government crackdown on the remaining large popular sites would be a tag team approach to absolutely ****ing over the open internet.
    Well then maybe it's time for antitrust laws to catch up with the technology. It's hard to claim that if an idea was banned from Google, Facebook and Twitter that it wouldn't have a chilling effect on free speech.

  7. #27
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    04-22-18 @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    111

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Hmmm, the profundity of the Declaration of Independence only carrying 30% of the meaning of free speech, and not even saying that is what it is doing, which is all but proven to reasonable people, seems to mean nothing here.

    The Greater Meaning of Free Speech leads to an understanding that can create;
    foregiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    I guess I should not be surprised the the only discussion here is about how hate speech or unpopular subjects should not be restricted, we've forgotten that there is positive speech that should be supported. No wonder we have forgot promoting that which is good and can only refrain from stopping that which is bad.

    Wow! American dumbing down? Is that an understatement? Any wonder why the country is a mess? Spiritually bankrupt.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •