[SolarCross]

Yes, you like personal attacks against me.

Call it what you like. I have no reason to support your freedom speech if you would ban it for others. Your ideology and agenda is absolutely repellent, so my commitment to freedom of speech is the only reason I would have not to actively persecute you from all the platforms including this one. I see no reason to extend that commitment to those that do not do the same.

The important thing is that enhanced carriers do not provide a basic service. They provide an enhanced or luxury service, so they are not as regulated. I need water. I do not need Youtube videos. So the government is going to make sure everyone (who is white) gets clean water, but may not spend equal resources making sure you can access Youtube videos that confirm a racist bias.

See this in hate speech against white people and the government. Bald faced racism. You should be banned for that by your own odious agenda. Youtube is a livelihood for some people, banning people from youtube is like banning beggars from the public square.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

Feel free to quote where I oppose free speech.

And feel free to explain how my post said anything bad about white people.

Or please notify the moderators about my behaviour.

Now, you finally mention something approximating an argument: how Youtube is a way of making money for some racist people.

The mere fact that someone makes money off something does not mean we should allow it. Thieves make money by stealing.

[SolarCross]

@Pants-of-dog
If a beggar was busking in the public square, the forum, singing a song for coppers that was irreligious, should religious people ban him from that place for that?

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

Can you provide an argument as to why this busker should or should not be banned? Or do you just want my personal feelings about it?

Now, let us assume that said busker should be allowed to ply his trade. This assumes that merely making money off your speech should not be a reason t9 ban it, which is a logical assumption.

Now, let us assume that this busker starts taking requests. Should he be forced to take all requests equally?

What if he became super famous, and the only way to get a record deal was to get this busker to play your song. Should we force him to take all requests equally?

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross

Can you provide an argument as to why this busker should or should not be banned? Or do you just want my personal feelings about it?

Now, let us assume that said busker should be allowed to ply his trade. This assumes that merely making money off your speech should not be a reason t9 ban it, which is a logical assumption.

Now, let us assume that this busker starts taking requests. Should he be forced to take all requests equally?

What if he became super famous, and the only way to get a record deal was to get this busker to play your song. Should we force him to take all requests equally?

I will make it easy for you, and just tell you the answer since you can not get it on your own. The religious people should hold their peace and ignore the beggar's offensive irreverence towards their beliefs because in other circumstances it might be their offensive beliefs being muzzled by a different kind of censor. If they cannot tolerate the beggar then the beggar should have no use in tolerating them.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

Yes, that was the same assumption I made.

You even quoted where I said that.

Now, should we force this busker to take all requests equally?

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross

Yes, that was the same assumption I made.

You even quoted where I said that.

Now, should we force this busker to take all requests equally?

He can not do all requests, in this way he is a publisher not a carrier. The square is a carrier. You can argue that youtube is a publisher, like Salon, huff po or whatever. No one expects huff po to publish material that is representative of all perspectives, because they are limited for space. We would expect the ISPs not to block huff po content though even if the CEOs of the ISPs objected to their sexism and racism. This is because ISPs are carriers.

[Pants-of-dog]

He can not do all requests, in this way he is a publisher not a carrier. The square is a carrier. You can argue that youtube is a publisher, like Salon, huff po or whatever. No one expects huff po to publish material that is representative of all perspectives, because they are limited for space. We would expect the ISPs not to block huff po content though even if the CEOs of the ISPs objected to their sexism and racism. This is because ISPs are carriers.

Let us imagine that our busker can magically do all requests, so that he is now a carrier.

Should he be forced to do so?

[SolarCross]

Let us imagine that our busker can magically do all requests, so that he is now a carrier.

Should he be forced to do so?

I would not force him too. I think he should want to play whatever the crowd requests. Especially so if he is not limited by resources, it is an automatic process. Probably if he dissatisfies enough people with his priggish disdain then he will only create the demand for a competitor who is less puritanical. Then he will lose out. In youtube's case that is already happening.

[Godstud]

@SolarCross Do not refer to me, or use my name any more of your angry rants against anyone who doesn't agree 100% that freedom of speech should be absolute.

I do not agree with you. That does not make me a fascist. That does not make me a totalitarian. That does not make me a Communist. That does not make me any other insulting thing you can imagine while you rant on about your feelings. I just hold a more moderate opinion, that is not based on an extremist view of freedom of speech.

I was not being dishonest. I have never been dishonest. You arguing that, is yet another personal attack.

Make an argument based on reason, logic, and facts, and not ad hominems and name-calling. It does not further your argument when you try to "yell over me", or anyone else who might not hold such an extremist point of view.

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross Do not refer to me, or use my name any more of your angry rants against anyone who doesn't agree 100% that freedom of speech should be absolute.

I don't agree with you. That does not make me a fascist. That does not make me a totalitarian. That does not make me any other insulting thing you can imagine while you blab on about your feelings. I just hold a more moderate stance in regards to this as you.

I am not being dishonest. I have never been dishonest and you arguing that, is yet another personal attack.

Make an argument based on reason, logic, and facts, and not ad hominems, and name-calling. It does not further your argument when you try to "yell over me". In fact, it hurts it.

Totalitarian is as totalitarian does. From my point of view your stance is the more extreme. I am not trying muzzle anyone.

[Godstud]

Totalitarian is as totalitarian does.

Ad hominem. Is that all you can come up with?

I am not trying muzzle anyone.

No. You insult, use ad hominems, and create false narratives about anyone who disagrees with you, in the slightest.

My view is not totalitarian. You think it's all or nothing. It's not. That is very unrealistic.

Can you point out a country where freedom of speech is absolute?

[Pants-of-dog]

I would not force him too. I think he should want to play whatever the crowd requests. Especially so if he is not limited by resources, it is an automatic process. Probably if he dissatisfies enough people with his priggish disdain then he will only create the demand for a competitor who is less puritanical. Then he will lose out. In youtube's case that is already happening.

Does his refusal to play these requests amount to a loss of free speech for the requesters?

[SolarCross]

@Godstud I am just holding a mirror. A lot of evil comes about because a lack of self-awareness. Maybe you think I am being harsh on your feelings but I am trying to help you.

You like censorship because it makes you feel powerful and virtuous, same as it does for puritans, but if everyone goes about punishing people for thinking or speaking in a different way then we end up in hell pretty quick. Anyone who wants to throw stones should first think about what it would be like for the stones to be coming the other way. Sure you do not like white nationalists, I do not like them either, but you also do not like Christians, the libertarians, the zionists and americans and so on and so on. No doubt there are also many people who do not like the way you talk or your opinions. If you can muzzle the white nationalists, why should not the Christians or the Zionists or the Americans muzzle you for your anti-christian / anti-jewish or anti-american hate speech? Of course you can be muzzled too.

You can start a war but that does not mean you get to finish it, the Germans tried that twice and both times they lost.

[Godstud]

@Godstud I am just holding a mirror. A lot of evil comes about because a lack of self-awareness. Maybe you think I am being harsh on your feelings but I am trying to help you.

No, you are not holding a mirror up to anything. If anything, you are projecting.

You are being rude, obnoxious, and reactionary. You cannot argue the point in such a way that I agree with you, so you attack me, instead of my realistic point of view.

The rest of your post is about your feelings, and complete drivel that you think, I think. It's wrong, of course, because you don't know anything about me, and are not very observant.

Please show me an example of a place where there is absolute freedom of speech.

[colliric]

They're carriers.

[noemon]

Carriers such as server companies and ISP's are also subject to the exact same laws as the rest of society. If content(such as racism, antisemitism) is hosted in them that breaks the law and they fail to take action against it after it has been pointed out to them, then they get compromised.

[Godstud]

Yes, @noemon but isn't it totalitarian and communist to limit any kind of freedom of speech, no matter what it may be?




Noemon Edit: Threatening the administration in private that unless we do as instructed such and such. This will never be tolerated in here under any circumstances and by anybody.

[Patrickov]

I hope skinster is free to rail against whoever she likes until the end of time, so I am not being partisan. If she is would protect the free speech of others, even people she regards as enemies, then she deserves to have it herself. You and Godstud both deserve to lose it.

As far as opinions against individual members go, I am afraid the above quote is the exact opposite of what I observe and, hence, deduce.

Back to the topic:

There should also be a distinction between public carriers and private carriers.

I understand that public ones are funded by the Government and private ones not, and private ones often need to put forward some business interests in order to go on, while public ones do not. In this case social media should be private carriers. But other than these, I find little difference in their functionality, especially on their content control policy, as long as that they are run under the same jurisdiction.

[Godstud]

@Patrickov, SolarCross is misrepresenting my argument, which is that there should be limits to free speech where it is harmful, not whimsical. He thinks it's simply all or nothing, and stated such. Such is obviously not the case, and so then we venture into his feelings and what he thinks should happen to people who don't agree with his radical view.