Would a social media website survive where anybody was free to say anything about anything?

ZeusAres42

Free speech or not free speech this would lose business. Do you want to dine at a restaurant where a load of hoodlums, drunks, etc, are free to do and say what they like constantly? And how do you think that would affect you as a business? I know what I would do!

John_C_87

Here's where I think you have your priorities back to front. The freedom of individuals to self-expression is more important to a healthy society than the profit interests of business. A business shouldn't be able to censor individuals from writing bad reviews, for example.

It depends on who is coaching what is free or in whole truth who is teaching what is to be considered free. The freedom of speech is in a context of United State within a solid connection to a more perfect union to established justice and common defense tward the gederal welfare to ensure tranquility before other states of the union  made in the 1st Amendment. Freedom of self expression must be proven to be without cost by the person filing the claim, or it is not free as a truth, it is by facts something else, it is that simple. As a united state indivigual self-expression is a libert only protectected by Civil Rights, and it is Civil Rights that are not a United States Consitutinal Right it is a effort to imply in the judical system itself a part of the judical system can create a better connection to established justice than all others of that same system.

You are describing a civil right to individually self-expression freely and only calling it  The freedom of individuals to self-expression mimicking a principle of Executive officer #3 not describing the United States Constitutional right to individual self-expression, which is then affixed to describing a more perfect state of the union with established justice and the common defense of ensuring tranquility. You are describing a perjury committed by a lawyer inside or outside of America, possibly both, whereas, at some time, and about something in a civil lawsuit that was never addressed by a President as an Untied States Constitutional preservation issue in a Military or Armed Service court of law. As this is a demonstration of ability by oath of Executive office which does not mandate as fact by simple entry to the Oval Office.

To point out an error made by women jumping to conclusion the self-evident truth presented by the statement of fact “All men are created equal by their creator.”  Is directed at the original creation of precdedent from the creation of President of the United States of America. As from a creator.  This in which the Bill of Rights goes on to describe that because of a united state of truths set to form a whole truth, a person such as a lawyer or doctor, farmer or farm hand, soldier to slave can be placed in a position of equality when holding a united state of the union under American constitutional right.

The issue of Freedom of speech is not addressable by law as it has been placed as a United State Constitutional Right and its measurement now by how it acts as creator of its connection to established justice and common defense to ensure tranquility as a general welfare. To keep on topic Thomas Jefferson had understandings of the America’s United States Constitutional shortfalls. He had this because those shortfalls where the same that are found in the nature of all men. The exclusion of women is by fact established because the flaws inside the nature of all men are not by truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth ever all the same flaws that may be found in all men.

To be clear the direction of Congress, the direction of the House of Representatives was set in stone, by image and by writing that it is as united state to establish states of the union of constitutional Right not law. It has been assigned this task only be sidebar of legal counsel not legal precedent and oath of those respected political offices.

Dee

Free speech is a myth continuously put forward by people as a reality , when in fact all speech is extremely  limited and regulated no matter where you live.

We are now living in a worldwide open nuthouse where people can be sacked , fined , jailed and  " cancelled" by a minority of self entitled snowflakes who insist they have the right to tell you and I by threat ( backed by governments) how you must address them and what language is acceptable.to them, if you don't obey their petulant demands your life will be destroyed.

A female teacher last week at a £20,000 a year girls  school had to offer a grovelling apology for the horrendous crime of saying  " goid morning girls " 7 of the " girls" were   deeply wounded as ( predictably) they  identified under some other nonsensical terms that only snowflakes like them are familiar with.

The unfortunate woman has now being " managed out  of here job"  apparently saying " fired " is also deeply offensive 

Not to be outdone a director of a Eurovision pop group here in Ireland has been fired for saying a male rapist is .......male,  this left the Irish group  " stunned " , " horrified" and " sickened" as the male rapist identifies as female. Its insanity on steroids everyone is suddenly waiting to be offended so they can hold a pity party and plan the fall of the nasty , vile creature who wounded them.

Now I see in my FB feed a girl who identifies as a red Hawk , interesting is the fact she's the first hawk I've ever seen wearing half inch thick spectacles , if I were her parents I would feed the mad b-tch grasshoppers,  crickets and dragonflies I bet it would change its mind quick enough , she's not a hawk shes a mad cow.

I think such a site would level out over time as and I'd let them knock lumps out of each other until they got sick of it all.

John_C_87

Dee it is nothing more less than witness tampering as a legal grievance which is a united state as law describing an improper state of the union made on established justice. In this case, in the example pointed out it is to the balance of Constitutional right set by an official introduction of fact and truth the loss as measurement is weighed on common defense toward a general welfare ignored over a democratic idea set on preservation of ensured tranquility of a people. 

It is a basic mismanagement of the people’s trust that is often exploited as a crime designed for voting superiority on political grounds of reason and right. Trust is violated as a means to build a stage for political gain over a long-term investment of smaller changes in constitutional rights persist and create circumstance some in the public spotlight could not end it they tried. Many people looked on as this process took time to grow inside media for decades, it is not an overnight problem. To be specific, in grievance people are arguing a united state held on money as payment and not a larger state of the union cost of any payment that may act on the burden of ensured tranquility in relationship to any freedom. 

John_C_87

The unfortunate woman has now being " managed out  of here job"  apparently saying " fired " is also deeply offensive 

As a foot note an operation of authority may choose to call any termination "managed out" over "fired" as a means of objection to other issue built around "terminations of laborers." It is legal educate to announce a formal grievance on record so it may be entered between sessions of a courts of law. Again, Free speech does not exist in a court of law and is the principle which has established the overall practice of law throughout all nations.

In pointing out formations of United States set as a common defesne of gedenral welfare the three states here are those who preserve, protect, and defend Bills of Right, those who preserve, protect, and defend Civil Rights, and those who preserve, protect, and defend United States Constitutional Right.

ZeusAres42

Free speech or not free speech this would lose business. Do you want to dine at a restaurant where a load of hoodlums, drunks, etc, are free to do and say what they like constantly? And how do you think that would affect you as a business? I know what I would do!

Just to elaborate here, from a customer perspective if I want to dine at a restaurant and there were a load of drunken idiots that were free to be and do what they like, start fights, and arguments, were loud, rude, and obnoxious then I am not dining there!

Lots of people make the mistake here of confusing liberty with license. Completely two different things. Rudeness, violence, starting fights with other customers, etc is not liberty; and this is also an infringement of other people's personal space to allow this to happen without consequences. This is not censorship by any means. Censorship would be putting a ban on topics that customers can discuss,monitoring their activities, and the government owns restaurants probably too (in some countries) and if there is a place like that I am not going there either.

Freedom to say and do as you please is not liberty; that's license.

Furthermore, looking at this from a business perspective, I don't care about you guys whining about free speech rights; this is my f*cking restaurant, my rules, and if I don't like you, you can f*ck off. Yo 5% rifraf idiots are not important to me; the other 95 percent of respectable, appreciative customers that are making me bucks are all that matter to me.

Marco Pierre White said it best here:

ZeusAres42

FYI, on another note, there are completely decentralized social media platforms that exist and have done so for a while. This is all based on free and open-source software and stuff. The good thing about this is you and everyone else is in control. There is no owner making money from anything. Before, I was looking at this from a business perspective; restaurants are business, social media sites are business in most cases, and hence the prior analogy.

So, yes, social media websites like this do survive but you won't be making any money from anyone or anything. As I said, these are all open sources, free, non-prophet stuff. Also, if you have good computer skills you can even create your own social networking server. However, that still doesn't negate the fact that free speech does not mean a license to infringe on and violate other people's being whether that be their property, personal space, their service, etc. And without consequences. Low-life losers have no place in my circle. 

John_C_87

 Free speech is much like flypaper. It looks open, roomy, and a safe place to stand to simply take liberties on others. The glue on the word free however is the United State of introduced fact, truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth set in established justice. It is placed in connection to the word “free” when it is made part of a state of the union of self-evident truths. What is the catch with the word free? Something must be proven as having no cost as a common defense towards the general welfare otherwise it becomes unconstitutional. What does unconstitutional mean in this case might be a very important question. It means it is no longer right and the presumption of innocence does not cover areas of all wrongs only those addressed as guilt and innocence.

ZeusAres42 I like what you have written, I just understand that you are capable of polishing it more, what are the boundaries of Antagonistic speech? In the task of Presadera a woman, any women would be holding a connection made by four or more points to which starting observations of fact are visible and can be described openly by truth the final self-evident truth as goal is the single outcome that is planted by the series of conditional truths. The self-evident truth may not be easily observed as it requires one trigger position a person of, we the people must be located in a position where the self-evident truth can be seen from. There will be no other place to see the whole truth and nothing but truth except at that one location.

“We the People” is written before saying of “all men are created equal by their creator.” Said. “We the people” also came way before the introduction of facts "all women are created equal by their creator" as well as all men and not in the same way so in whole truth can not ever be held together by force of law. In a legal way, This leaves a question if it is taking place how is it taking place and by what crime? The goal of all women is not to reach the Executive level of the Oval Office, Presadera is not the trump card in a trick game it is a declaration of a Untied States Consitutional Right. Is it a principle that all men can come up with? Is it a principle that all women can come up with?

John_C_87

Sorry for the length of read as scope of principle.

Completely two different things. Rudeness, violence, starting fights with other customers, etc is not liberty. Okay, in whole truth all of those things are a liberty it is the united state they share which is Wrong not Right. Here is a perspective of governing as a nation / group of people. A united State of Constitution principle can be written to govern the people over rights and wrongs. Whereas law is written to govern over truth and lie then it is innocent and guilt that can be balanced between as United State.

Here is a point made on the phrase "Land of the Free." We the people are presumed innocent till proven guilty in a court of law, meaning by fact we are all free only in presumption of moral wrong and by wording are free when naïve. There are other united states which can deserve a liberty of freedom when held correctly. To carry on a discussion, we have shared in guidlines to hold when writing of United States of Constitutional right there are some key points to be worked out. Issues already made. Things that are valid in preserving the longevity of a liberty to seek not only perfect common defense We the people can seek perfect ways in which to connect to established justice.

A political directive as mission statement for Constitutional amendments might read something like: Its regulation in its law of nature has been found as requirement that amendments to constitutional affirmations be addressed directly as Section of Article of Constitution itself, as so that cost of liberty, cost of fact, and cost of entry of these things are to be balanced in established justice, common defense to the general welfare, etc.  prior to Bill of Right. In doing so all creators of Constitution shall be posthumous kept on legal record as signees of American United States Constitution. Whereas the legal requirement of signature be resumed on documents presented to the people as ratification.

This is written in understanding of the burden of both right and wrong that is to fall on the elected of office. There is a vast difference to correcting a order of truths as right inside constitutional principles and substitute truths to abolish a point made that is no longer true in itself.

iedz

Argument Topic: Was the citizen exercising their right to express their ideas or sharing hate?

I believe that the media should be better prepared to deal with this "freedom of speech," assuming that many will not have the same thinking.

In fact, fantasizing that everyone will come to think alike is foolish. One should open up this space where people can express their ideas clearly and sensibly.

Everything has a certain limitation; it could be a totally open space and this could happen in a natural way.

I don't exclude a certain control, not to silence people with opposing thoughts (fascism or authoritarianism), but to avoid hate speech not only from one group, but also from all people who don't know how to expose their thoughts without attacking people's integrity.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: The latter of the two cesspool of hate.

@jack

Just check out these forums the center for countering digital hate found.

"Poorly-moderated social media gives bad actors a platform to drag others into a rabbit hole of despair - which often can end in deadly real-world consequences."

https://counterhate.com/research/incelosphere/

 Speaking of hate, I am so glad that nomenclature got banned.

ZeusAres42

Some people are just too dum*b to understand the concept of words having consequences/think freedom of speech gets rid of any consequences.

John_C_87

Is freedom of speech a united state or was it just part of a united state set in America?
If it was part of a united state where did the state of the union start and where did it end?
Are we working on the governing of law or are we addressing a malpractice of law at a location?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: It Depends

A social media website where anyone is free to say anything about anything would have both advantages and disadvantages to its survival.

On the one hand, such a platform would offer users complete freedom of speech, which could foster open and engaging discussions, and offer a safe space for marginalized groups to have a voice. This approach could also be seen as an effective way to tackle censorship and encourage diverse and tolerant exchanges.

On the other hand, this kind of 'free-for-all' platform could lead to hate speech, spreading of fake news, harassment, and trolling. These negative behaviors could turn away users and lead to a lack of reliability of the information shared on the site. In addition, it could face legal liability issues due to the promulgation of content that legitimately causes harm to individuals or groups, resulting in user backlash and enforcement actions.

While a social media site with unrestricted freedom of speech may seem desirable to some, it is unlikely to be able to attract and retain a large following, possibly leading to its demise. Alternatively, if it has moderation tools to filter out problematic types of speech and maintain some baseline civility and legality, it may thrive.

JulesKorngold

Aaron__The__Coward said:

@JulesKorngold

On the other hand, this kind of 'free-for-all' platform could lead to hate speech, spreading of fake news, harassment, and trolling

Which is all you use this particular website for. Had you the honesty to admit it -- which of course you don't -- what you advocate is freedom of speech for yourself and restrictions for everybody else. Your anti-Irish hate speech is some of the most vile I have ever encountered, you troll, stalk and harass other users continuously, and simply rely on a relationship with the owner to get away with it.

Frankly, you are one of the most disingenuous people presently using the internet, and a firm follower of the belief that it should be one rule for you, and another for everybody else.

Isn't it a shame YOU got banned a zillion times and Aaron thinks you're a useless turd?  So do I.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Yawn

@Aaron__The__Coward
Your whining is boring.