Free Speech Warrior

[Speaker to Animals]

The second, and the one being used pejoratively in a phrase like Free Speech Warrior, would be 'speech without consequences.'

I think you are making shit up.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

What's speech without consequences? There's always consequences to speech; often people don't like them so they attempt restained speech.

I agree, and that is where the parity lies, I suppose. An SJW will try to deny a speaker an opportunity to speak beforehand (which is bad), and the FSW believes there shouldn't be negative consequences for speech (which is stupid). To what extent anyone actually believes this... I couldn't say, but some speech is subject to pretty sharply diminishing returns in the marketplace of ideas.

This forum is a pretty good microcosm but I learned my position on Speech from FB where I was brigaded, slandered, restricted & banned. Notice how all of those are all limits on Speech.

The idea that FB was ever a venue for unrestricted speech was always a fantasy.

To put it another way, if I claimed some RIGHT that obliged Penguin or Random House to publish my wildly unpopular rantings, I would probably be accused of being an entitled millennial brat, and rightfully so. Same with FB. Now that the fantasy has been exploded, provocateurs are going to have to go back to funding their own pamphlets without Zuckerbergs help, I guess.

[Martin Hash]

I agree, and that is where the parity lies, I suppose. An SJW will try to deny a speaker an opportunity to speak beforehand (which is bad), and the FSW believes there shouldn't be negative consequences for speech (which is stupid). To what extent anyone actually believes this... I couldn't say, but some speech is subject to pretty sharply diminishing returns in the marketplace of ideas.

This forum is a pretty good microcosm but I learned my position on Speech from FB where I was brigaded, slandered, restricted & banned. Notice how all of those are all limits on Speech.

The idea that FB was ever a venue for unrestricted speech was always a fantasy.

To put it another way, if I claimed some RIGHT that obliged Penguin or Random House to publish my wildly unpopular rantings, I would probably be accused of being an entitled millennial brat, and rightfully so. Same with FB. Now that the fantasy has been exploded, provocateurs are going to have to go back to funding their own pamphlets without Zuckerbergs help, I guess.

R U sure you were answering my quoted sentence? (If I apply that to what I posted to FB, that's insulting.)

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The second, and the one being used pejoratively in a phrase like Free Speech Warrior, would be 'speech without consequences.'

I think you are making shit up.

Like I said, I don't know if it is a real phenomenon, but I am assuming that is the meaning being used by the people who invented the phrase.

But I've seen GCF get pilloried here for suggesting that one reaps what they sow, so there is obviously some point of contention vis consequences.

[Speaker to Animals]

Facebook has to choose one and only one:

1) We are a common carrier and cannot be held liable for what users post on our site.

2) We reserve the right to censor political views we don't like.


###


It gets worse.

YouTube has to either stop the censoring of nationalist and conservative views, or start paying people back for the money they invested in these ventures. YouTube currently advertises an open network for people to produce video content and share in ad revenue. People invest in expensive cameras and other equipment to produce these videos. YouTube then arbitrarily shuts down or demonetizes videos that feature political content that YouTube does not support. Note that YouTube does not censor anti-white hate speech, anti-male hate speech, calls literally attack conservatives with violence, etc.

That is fraud.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

This forum is a pretty good microcosm but I learned my position on Speech from FB where I was brigaded, slandered, restricted & banned. Notice how all of those are all limits on Speech.

The idea that FB was ever a venue for unrestricted speech was always a fantasy.

To put it another way, if I claimed some RIGHT that obliged Penguin or Random House to publish my wildly unpopular rantings, I would probably be accused of being an entitled millennial brat, and rightfully so. Same with FB. Now that the fantasy has been exploded, provocateurs are going to have to go back to funding their own pamphlets without Zuckerbergs help, I guess.

R U sure you were answering my quoted sentence? (If I apply that to what I posted to FB, that's insulting.)

Do you think FB is obliged to allow you to post?

[Speaker to Animals]

The second, and the one being used pejoratively in a phrase like Free Speech Warrior, would be 'speech without consequences.'

I think you are making shit up.

Like I said, I don't know if it is a real phenomenon, but I am assuming that is the meaning being used by the people who invented the phrase.

But I've seen GCF get pilloried here for suggesting that one reaps what they sow, so there is obviously some point of contention vis consequences.

GCF blames victims of terroristic violence for their attack. That's what he got pilloried for.

Now that we are all clear that by "consequences of your speech" you mean that people should be beaten in the face with clubs for wearing a MAGA hats, we can all put your statements into the proper context: fucking horseshit.

[Speaker to Animals]

The idea that FB was ever a venue for unrestricted speech was always a fantasy.

To put it another way, if I claimed some RIGHT that obliged Penguin or Random House to publish my wildly unpopular rantings, I would probably be accused of being an entitled millennial brat, and rightfully so. Same with FB. Now that the fantasy has been exploded, provocateurs are going to have to go back to funding their own pamphlets without Zuckerbergs help, I guess.

R U sure you were answering my quoted sentence? (If I apply that to what I posted to FB, that's insulting.)

Do you think FB is obliged to allow you to post?

Again, the question comes down to what Facebook really is.

Is it like a newspaper that publishes whatever they want and refuses to publish stories in a way that harms their political goals?

Or are they like telephone network that simply provides a communications service to all customers?

Because depending upon your answer, they are regulated very differently, and they currently want it both ways, however it suits them best.

[Martin Hash]

The idea that FB was ever a venue for unrestricted speech was always a fantasy.

To put it another way, if I claimed some RIGHT that obliged Penguin or Random House to publish my wildly unpopular rantings, I would probably be accused of being an entitled millennial brat, and rightfully so. Same with FB. Now that the fantasy has been exploded, provocateurs are going to have to go back to funding their own pamphlets without Zuckerbergs help, I guess.

R U sure you were answering my quoted sentence? (If I apply that to what I posted to FB, that's insulting.)

Do you think FB is obliged to allow you to post?

Dude, I was running for the U.S. House of Representative. Do you suggest another monopolitic Social Platform I should use?

[Martin Hash]

R U sure you were answering my quoted sentence? (If I apply that to what I posted to FB, that's insulting.)

Do you think FB is obliged to allow you to post?

Again, the question comes down to what Facebook really is.

Is it like a newspaper that publishes whatever they want and refuses to publish stories in a way that harms their political goals?

Or are they like telephone network that simply provides a communications service to all customers?

Because depending upon your answer, they are regulated very differently, and they currently want it both ways, however it suits them best.

Phone companies being prohibited from blocking your calls because they don't like your politics (or whatever) is an unassailable argument but anti-Free Speechers simply ignore it.