Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Set to Kill Freedom of Speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump Set to Kill Freedom of Speech

    President Donald Trump is reportedly drafting an executive order to address allegations of bias at tech companies, which he says have unduly targeted conservatives. Although ostensibly offered in service of free speech, the order would almost certainly increase censorship instead.

    The measure is far from concrete and "has already taken many different forms," Politicoreports. But the most recent version, obtained by CNN, would instruct the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission to verify that social media platforms operate with political neutrality when they moderate content. If they fail to do so, the platforms could be stripped of the protections afforded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    As it currently stands, that rule shields social media companies from certain criminal and civil liabilities surrounding the millions of posts that third parties publish on their sites every day. Revoking those protections would not encourage the free flow of content online. It would hamper it, as moderators would inevitably move toward cracking down on any potentially defamatory post.
    https://reason.com/2019/08/09/trumps...online-speech/

    For the sake of argument, let's assume Trump won't abuse this. But, what do you think will happen when this power is in the hands of a liberal president? This will grant them the ability to take down any site in which they subjectively deem to be biased towards an opposing party or offensive to their own party.

    This is why it's important for the people to solve these issues on their own. Any time the government gets involved, there is always great potential for abuse and the limitation of our freedoms.
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

  • #2
    I guess we should start up with "reportedly drafting"........then "far from concrete"....then "taken many different forms".....then "most resent version from CNN"..... There really isn't anything to "argue" about. One thing for sure, Trump isn't set to kill freedom of speech.
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
      For the sake of argument, let's assume Trump won't abuse this. But, what do you think will happen when this power is in the hands of a liberal president? This will grant them the ability to take down any site in which they subjectively deem to be biased towards an opposing party or offensive to their own party.

      This is why it's important for the people to solve these issues on their own. Any time the government gets involved, there is always great potential for abuse and the limitation of our freedoms.
      Well, we don't have to imagine far. Companies like Google already internally do subjectively censor speech.

      https://nypost.com/2019/08/01/google...-conservative/

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...ies-utilities/

      https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...democrats-slam

      https://www.wnd.com/2016/12/47-u-s-c...art-blacklist/

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rtland/390048/

      So, Trump has something of a point. If these companies inject their own internal bias into external operations censoring what the public posts on social media sites, isn't that just as bad, or worse, than the government doing it?

      Back when Bush was President, the MSM and Democrats were all about bringing back The Fairness Doctrine to radio to quash Right wing talk radio. I thought that was equally reprehensible to what companies like Google and Facebook are doing today.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Well, we don't have to imagine far. Companies like Google already internally do subjectively censor speech.

        https://nypost.com/2019/08/01/google...-conservative/

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...ies-utilities/

        https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...democrats-slam

        https://www.wnd.com/2016/12/47-u-s-c...art-blacklist/

        https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rtland/390048/

        So, Trump has something of a point. If these companies inject their own internal bias into external operations censoring what the public posts on social media sites, isn't that just as bad, or worse, than the government doing it?

        Back when Bush was President, the MSM and Democrats were all about bringing back The Fairness Doctrine to radio to quash Right wing talk radio. I thought that was equally reprehensible to what companies like Google and Facebook are doing today.
        I didn't deny the problem. I proposed a different solution.
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

          I didn't deny the problem. I proposed a different solution.
          Congress has taken this up in the recent past but did nothing... How typical... The solution would be to find ways to encourage more companies enter the field and break up the monopoly of just a few large ones dominating the market.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

            https://reason.com/2019/08/09/trumps...online-speech/

            For the sake of argument, let's assume Trump won't abuse this. But, what do you think will happen when this power is in the hands of a liberal president? This will grant them the ability to take down any site in which they subjectively deem to be biased towards an opposing party or offensive to their own party.

            This is why it's important for the people to solve these issues on their own. Any time the government gets involved, there is always great potential for abuse and the limitation of our freedoms.


            I would agree that it is a bad idea for the government to get involved.
            However, how do people solve censorship at Google?
            It is a near, if not actual, monopoly.

            The solution to the problem may be awful, but given the absence of real competition there may be no other alternative.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X