America - The Official Thread

[TexRex]

Free speech sounds good if everyone can discuss things in a reasonable manner, but that's not the case at all.

Free speech is speech not subject to state action.

State action in the direct sense means penalty (such as, but not limited to, financial penalty or revocation of a legal right) or prosecution, while state action may apply indirectly as with the settling of civil disputes in a court of law.

The right to free speech cannot be affected by a private actor (of which Twitter is an example, no matter who is operating it) directly*. Access to private services isn't a right, but a privilege, and the privilege may be granted or denied entirely at the provider's discretion.

*A private actor may wield state action through civil litigation to affect the speech of others, however. It's important, though, that high standards for what constitutes legitimate harm justifying state action by adjudication are in place so as not to unjustly affect speech, and only certain categories of speech that represent legitimate harm may be unprotected. This is why rulings in civil disputes may be subjected to judicial review through appeal to higher courts, and it's also why efforts to unjustly suppress speech through litigation without merit may itself be penalized.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Free speech is speech not subject to state action.

State action in the direct sense means penalty (such as, but not limited to, financial penalty or revocation of a legal right) or prosecution, while state action may apply indirectly as with the settling of civil disputes in a court of law.

The right to free speech cannot be affected by a private actor (of which Twitter is an example, no matter who is operating it) directly*. Access to private services isn't a right, but a privilege, and the privilege may be granted or denied entirely at the provider's discretion.

*A private actor may wield state action through civil litigation to affect the speech of others, however. It's important, though, that high standards for what constitutes legitimate harm justifying state action by adjudication are in place so as not to unjustly affect speech, and only certain categories of speech that represent legitimate harm may be unprotected. This is why rulings in civil disputes may be subjected to judicial review through appeal to higher courts, and it's also why efforts to unjustly suppress speech through litigation without merit may itself be penalized.

I thought you could be punished for free speech if it's offensive or derogatory to others.

 

[TexRex]

I thought you could be punished for free speech if it's offensive or derogatory to others.

It would be for speech that one is punished. If speech is punished, it isn't free.

A country's laws may allow for that, but I'd suggest that offensive or derogatory speech isn't legitimately harmful. Merely offending (people may be offended by a great many things) is not a violation of rights, much less one justifying penalty or prosecution by the state.

Defamation is an example of speech that may reasonably be unprotected against state action when certain standards are met. In the United States, actionable (in that it may be settled in court) defamation must first be false, must be a statement of fact (not opinion or satire), and must impugn one's character, meaningfully harming their reputation.

Defamation claims are also much more likely to be abused than others in an effort to suppress criticism with lawsuits that a litigant knows don't meet standards but recognize that the threat of litigation costly to those against whom they're brought would silence criticism that isn't defamatory. Because of this abuse, statutes exist to penalize these lawsuits. Anti-SLAPP laws ("SLAPP" standing for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) establish guidelines whereby litigants may, for example, be required to pay the legal fees of those they're suing if the lawsuit is deemed to be without merit.

 

[UKMikey]

This is only a temporary block but if Republicans gain control of the House by the time it expires they're likely to drop the request for tfg's tax records altogether.

A cynic might argue that this was one of the primary reasons for his efforts to weight SCOTUS with conservative justices. Guess I'm a cynic.

Roberts delays handover of Trump tax returns to House panel

Chief Justice John Roberts has put a temporary hold on the handover of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns to a congressional committee.

apnews.com

 

[Imari]

A country's laws may allow for that, but I'd suggest that offensive or derogatory speech isn't legitimately harmful. Merely offending (people may be offended by a great many things) is not a violation of rights, much less one justifying penalty or prosecution by the state.

Alex Jones and associated entities? He's the most recent example that springs to mind of someone being sued successfully for what they said.

 

[Tornado]

This is only a temporary block but if Republicans gain control of the House by the time it expires they're likely to drop the request for tfg's tax records altogether.

A cynic might argue that this was one of the primary reasons for his efforts to weight SCOTUS with conservative justices. Guess I'm a cynic.

Roberts delays handover of Trump tax returns to House panel

Chief Justice John Roberts has put a temporary hold on the handover of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns to a congressional committee.

apnews.com

I dunno. As laughably self-serving/illegitimate as this court is, the only one who actually seems to have fealty to Trump specifically seems to be Thomas. In the same day that they did this they told Graham to kick rocks over him trying to cover up his interference in Georgia's election.

 

[TexRex]

Alex Jones and associated entities? He's the most recent example that springs to mind of someone being sued successfully for what they said.

Absolutely. Even setting aside decisions related to tort reform enacted in Texas and Connecticut (where suits were filed and trials were held) that are likely to significantly reduce financial penalty levied against Jones, the decisions themselves (default judgments in both cases, I believe, due to Jones' procedural non-compliance which kind of skipped over the question whether Jones' statements were legitimately harmful) are subject to review.

Higher courts are likely to consider whether Jones' statements meet standards for statements of fact or benefit from a rhetorical hyperbole defense and whether sustained harassment by those acting on Jones' statements was sufficiently damaging and may reasonably be attributed to Jones' statements. Penalty itself levied against Jones, which is to say the sum of damages subsequent to reductions by tort reform, aren't likely to be reviewed. It's hard to say where it's going to go, but I think the defenses are strong.

One subject of interest is the implications of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) as it relates to the Connecticut cases. Plaintiffs allege that part of Jones' business is speech itself and that falsehoods told run afoul of the law. Jones' attorneys have just filed for a motion to deny punitive damages under the law that are explicitly outside of Connecticut tort reform. Higher courts are likely to decide if speech as a commodity falls within the scope of CUTPA and similar laws and I can definitely see SCOTUS wanting to sink its teeth in.

There's also a Second Amendment issue where CUTPA is concerned, but it's hard to imagine even a particularly activist court addressing it when there are no Second Amendment implications in a case before them. Then again the current majority in the Supreme Court has demonstrated a propensity--in Kennedy (the proselytizing football coach) and now the Harvard and UNC affirmative action cases presently before them--to disregard the facts of a case and make decisions solely on ideological basis.

 

[DioEmsti]

I think this is the first time I've seen someone use this as a comeback without a single shred of irony.

It's good to see you openly embracing your roots as a radical anarchist.

It's all fun and games until the side applauding the "hate speech" ban and people getting fined or even jailed for supposedly hurting somebody's feelings online get a taste of their own medicine when they make absurd claims such as yours, you'd have a very hard time proving in court that I'm a radical anarchist, just saying! but I'm a grown human being and wouldn't sue anybody over some internet commentary. I'll leave that for the extra sensitive people out there.

I see a lot throwing poo at my comments which tbh I find hilarious! did you guys know that chimps throw poo at each other?

Why Do Chimpanzees Throw Poop? - The Fact Site

If you've ever been at the receiving end of a chimp throwing poop, you may wonder why they do this. Let's look at the facts and find out why!

www.thefactsite.com

"Not only is throwing poop or objects an emotional release for chimps but it is a form of communication. The better the chimp is at hitting the target, the better their communication is amongst the group."

 

[TexRex]

 

[McLaren]

It's all fun and games until the side applauding the "hate speech" ban and people getting fined or even jailed for supposedly hurting somebody's feelings online

Nobody advocates that & that never happens unless it starts getting into defamation levels.

You're deep in Conservative Kool-Aid talking points recently.

 

[Obelisk]

Nobody advocates that & that never happens unless it starts getting into defamation levels.

You're deep in Conservative Kool-Aid talking points recently.

It's been like that over in the thread about the Ukraine conflict too, so it's not an isolated thing with that user.

 

[TexRex]

So close, Rich. SO CLOSE!!!

Nobody advocates that & that never happens unless it starts getting into defamation levels.

"Hate speech" isn't a category of unprotected speech in the United States, full stop. Speech may be referred to when it relates to unlawful acts to determine if hate crime enhancements are appropriate, but the speech itself is fully protected and may not be punished by state action, direct or otherwise. It's protected because it's so subjective that it can't reasonably be said to be harmful in and of itself. It's also not sufficiently actionable that it meets defamation standards.

There are certainly those who advocate for it to not be a protected category of speech, sadly, but it's not something that's meaningfully sought.

As an aside, one's notion that a supposed hate speech ban would somehow be implicated when one refers to another's suppsed tendency toward "radical anarch[y]" is so idiotic that I question whether it was meant to be serious.

 

[McLaren]

Funny how the story has changed from hippie nudist to gay prostitute to illegal alien & now mentally ill individual.

Like any of those people care about mental illness.

 

[Blitz24]

Funny how the story has changed from hippie nudist to gay prostitute to illegal alien & now mentally ill individual.

Like any of those people care about mental illness.

Considering how one side blasts Fetterman for having an issue but ignoring Gosar? I don't think they understand either "mental" or "illness".

 

[Famine]

Dear Xenu...

And, lest we forget, his $8 idea came after Stephen King said "**** that" to the idea of $20, which he'd clearly spent just as much time thinking about.


"Somehow".

 

[Imari]

It's all fun and games until the side applauding the "hate speech" ban and people getting fined or even jailed for supposedly hurting somebody's feelings online get a taste of their own medicine when they make absurd claims such as yours...

What? You're suggesting that I'm going to be fined or jailed for making a single comment about you embracing your roots as an radical anarchist on a games forum on the internet where everyone is operating under pseudonyms?

I think you don't understand anything you've been talking about. I'd like to see what flavour this medicine is that you think you're gonna make me taste.

...you'd have a very hard time proving in court that I'm a radical anarchist, just saying!

Good job I don't have to then. I can just say that I think you're acting in a way that makes you look like you're a closet radical anarchist.

Feel free to tell me what laws I've broken that would justify thinking about going anywhere near a court.

...but I'm a grown human being and wouldn't sue anybody over some internet commentary. I'll leave that for the extra sensitive people out there.

You reckon? You seem the most excited about the idea of anyone here. That and your colossal misunderstanding of what constitutes a viable reason for legal action in the first place makes me think that you absolutely would if you got the chance.

 

[TexRex]

Funny how the story has changed from hippie nudist to gay prostitute to illegal alien & now mentally ill individual.

Weird, huh?

Dear Xenu...

View attachment 1205463

And, lest we forget, his $8 idea came after Stephen King said "**** that" to the idea of $20, which he'd clearly spent just as much time thinking about.


"Somehow".

Edit: There's supposed to be the same Musk screenshot beside the gif but it's not showing here for some reason.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Musk's antics are a little less cute when you realize he's memeing...or trying to meme...his...own...clients? Then it just looks dumb.

 

[UKMikey]

It's been like that over in the thread about the Ukraine conflict too, so it's not an isolated thing with that user.

And the Covid thread.

 

[Liquid]

Weird that Musk's takeaway from his discount discission is that this financial genius thinks Stephen King can't afford $20 a month.

 

[SestoScudo]

Funny how the story has changed from hippie nudist to gay prostitute to illegal alien & now mentally ill individual.

Like any of those people care about mental illness.

My dad watches Turkish news and the Paul Pelosi attack has made a few headlines well not really big but the news they picked up on is that he was expecting a Gay prostitute lmaoooo

So many news outlets just dont bother fact checking whatsoever 😆

 

[Famine]

Weird that Musk's takeaway from his discount discission is that this financial genius thinks Stephen King can't afford $20 a month.

He's about four Tweets away from announcing it's $4.20 a month, or $69 a year.

 

[Danoff]

Dear Xenu...

View attachment 1205463

And, lest we forget, his $8 idea came after Stephen King said "**** that" to the idea of $20, which he'd clearly spent just as much time thinking about.


"Somehow".

"Genius"

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

This Elon guy seems like a very nice person.

'The Expectation Is Literally To Work 24/7': Elon Musk Orders Twitter Staff To Work 84-Hour Weeks As 75% Of Employees Face Being Fired

According to a new report, Musk ordered his staffers to work 12-hour shifts seven days a week to meet newly implemented deadlines to overhaul the platform.

radaronline.com

 

[McLaren]

Tell him to kiss my ass. Work 84 hours just to potentially get laid off?

 

[DK]

I'd expect this from a crunch period in the Call of Duty mines.

 

[Touring Mars]

"The Expectation Is Literally To Work 24/7"...

Well, no... 'literally' it's an expectation to work 12/7 - still ridiculous though.

Anyone still working for Twitter and with an ounce of self-respect or common sense should quit now.

 

[EngieDiesel]

Given that the majority of the money for buying Twitter came from sold-off Tesla stock and bank loans guaranteeed by Twitter and not Elon himself, I'm becoming very convinced he's trying to intentionally tank the company's value, sell it off for a fraction of the purchase price, pocket the cash directly and skip off into the sunset.

Granted if he does do that he's also going to screw over Larry Ellison and a Saudi prince in the process, and I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of either of them, let alone both.

 

[Danoff]

"The Expectation Is Literally To Work 24/7"...

Well, no... 'literally' it's an expectation to work 12/7 - still ridiculous though.

Anyone still working for Twitter and with an ounce of self-respect or common sense should quit now.

I think I might play for a layoff in this instance. Fail to meet the required overtime and then get severance rather than quitting.

 

[Joey D]

You just know Musk worshippers (Musketeers? Muskites? Muskie Boys?) will all clamour at the chance to work for Daddy Elon because of their fascination with "hustle culture."