Elon Musk $41B offer for Twitter
Discussion
ZedLeg said:
Free speech as you describe it is already protected. What free speech absolutists like Musk and his fanboys want is the ability to say whatever they want with no consequences. No matter how harmful or untruthful it is.
It’s not protected. Just look at many recent cancellations of guest speakers at various Universities. The students actively prevent free speech. They riot, threaten, shout down etc should someone with a different view come to have an open discussion. Bandit said:
ZedLeg said:
Free speech as you describe it is already protected. What free speech absolutists like Musk and his fanboys want is the ability to say whatever they want with no consequences. No matter how harmful or untruthful it is.
It’s not protected. Just look at many recent cancellations of guest speakers at various Universities. The students actively prevent free speech. They riot, threaten, shout down etc should someone with a different view come to have an open discussion. Getting cancelled is the best thing that usually happens to these people, it's impossible to get them to shut up about it. News interviews, columns in national newspapers, books.
ZedLeg said:
This has been said infinity times before but private institutions deciding not to have someone speak isn't infringing free speech. The problem with free speech absolutists is that they always prioritise their own free speech over everyone else's. They should be able to say whatever they want but if you want to protest what they're saying then you're "cancelling" them or whatever.
Getting cancelled is the best thing that usually happens to these people, it's impossible to get them to shut up about it. News interviews, columns in national newspapers, books.
The “private institutions” are the things that invited these people to speak. It’s the public (students) who refuse to let it happen.Getting cancelled is the best thing that usually happens to these people, it's impossible to get them to shut up about it. News interviews, columns in national newspapers, books.
Bandit said:
ZedLeg said:
This has been said infinity times before but private institutions deciding not to have someone speak isn't infringing free speech. The problem with free speech absolutists is that they always prioritise their own free speech over everyone else's. They should be able to say whatever they want but if you want to protest what they're saying then you're "cancelling" them or whatever.
Getting cancelled is the best thing that usually happens to these people, it's impossible to get them to shut up about it. News interviews, columns in national newspapers, books.
The “private institutions” are the things that invited these people to speak. It’s the public (students) who refuse to let it happen.Getting cancelled is the best thing that usually happens to these people, it's impossible to get them to shut up about it. News interviews, columns in national newspapers, books.
ZedLeg said:
This has been said infinity times before but private institutions deciding not to have someone speak isn't infringing free speech. The problem with free speech absolutists is that they always prioritise their own free speech over everyone else's. They should be able to say whatever they want but if you want to protest what they're saying then you're "cancelling" them or whatever.
Getting cancelled is the best thing that usually happens to these people, it's impossible to get them to shut up about it. News interviews, columns in national newspapers, books.
Quite.Getting cancelled is the best thing that usually happens to these people, it's impossible to get them to shut up about it. News interviews, columns in national newspapers, books.
There's often a pattern where people want the right to say whatever they want "because free speech" but when other people use their right to free speech to respond to it (legally) by pointing out that what they've said is actually pretty disgusting "you're cancelling me".
Bandit said:
That’s exactly what’s happening. The students are saying “that person cannot talk.”
They're saying they don't want to sit and listen to it. More often than not because the speaker will have a history of hate speech, racism, anti-semitism....So they're exercising their rights to freedom of expression no?
bhstewie said:
Quite.
There's often a pattern where people want the right to say whatever they want "because free speech" but when other people use their right to free speech to respond to it (legally) by pointing out that what they've said is actually pretty disgusting "you're cancelling me".
No Stewie, I’m perfectly happy with people responding to opinions and sharing their distaste with what was said. My issues is when someone is stopped from saying anything at all (to anyone) which is what is happening in our Universities. There's often a pattern where people want the right to say whatever they want "because free speech" but when other people use their right to free speech to respond to it (legally) by pointing out that what they've said is actually pretty disgusting "you're cancelling me".
Bandit said:
ZedLeg said:
Right but if the institution then decides not to host the person being protested, it's not an infringement of free speech. No one is saying that person can't talk.
That’s exactly what’s happening. The students are saying “that person cannot talk.”Funny that people think there might be a cleanout of bots, they obviously haven't seen Elon's own mob of fake followers and flying monkeys in action.
I half wonder if he's really so sensitive about his own account that once his mate Jack was out of the way he felt this was the best way to keep his own podium alive? He relies on Twitter in a way that makes even Trump look like a casual user.
I half wonder if he's really so sensitive about his own account that once his mate Jack was out of the way he felt this was the best way to keep his own podium alive? He relies on Twitter in a way that makes even Trump look like a casual user.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff