Free speech was given to me by GOD
not government corporation nor any stinking person is taking it away from me. I was born free and will gladly die free
@kotyarazuchara8329 Says:
People here really thinking the biggest companies and governments exist separately and independently from each other :D
Also, everyone who says "no censorship whatsoever!", do you think ISIS should be able to FREELY spead their ideas?
@yeshuaislord7773 Says:
Also, hearing a lot of left his buzz words like hate speech, what is hate speech? Because as of right now we’re being censored and being punished for things like hate speech even if whatever you said isn’t hateful because they get to deem what’s hateful and what’s not so speaking about something if it offends the left it’s now hate speech personally I don’t care if you call me an N-word Because it’s your first right to say so and honestly, I’ve been called this so much grown up. I don’t even care. I don’t get mad about it. I just laugh so that would be more of the definition of hate speech though racist words in rhetoric, but I still would say let them say what they want to say and if there’s consequences later that’s on them
@yeshuaislord7773 Says:
It 100% does go against our first amendment rights
@mattfortunati Says:
Goofy ah music
@ppleberrynd Says:
Ironic considering you can't say "cis" on xitter.
@MBvillasboas Says:
I believe those social media CAN censor PROVIDE they become co-responsible to ALL that is being published there. If they want immunity to responsibility of what is published there they must not interfere. If something illegal is published, they must inform the authorities, not censor themselves. Otherwise they became co-responsible to what is being published. Including criminally responsible.
@largol33t1 Says:
What are you talking about??? Big Tech has been censoring free speech since the Obama regime.
@celiafrederick1471 Says:
Yo, “media” is already the plural form of the word…no “medias”, please!
@TweakRacer Says:
The biggest social media platforms are the modern day sidewalks. So zero censorship allowed, especially as the law shields them from liability.
@christophertadeo6120 Says:
I dunno. Would uu prefer dis whole thread plagued with explicitives🤔. I can do that... I remember this one time... 🤔
@rashomon66 Says:
Every tech company censors speech. Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat etc. Even Telegram, which doesn't do enough to remove illegal content. This is not an argument censoring someone because they have an unfavorable opinion about a Democrat or Republican they don't like. Censorship is about preventing illegal speech and communication that harms - for instance - children or that involves terror suspects communicating. It's also about censoring hate speech that has no place on any platform. It's also not a First Amendment argument because a private company has a right to not allow speech on their platform if it's deemed dangerous, illegal or in some cases just extremely misleading. So, yes, tech companies should censor some speech and do.
@RedemptionGabeYT Says:
Unless you threatened someone then it's not free speech.
@RedemptionGabeYT Says:
ABSOLUTELY NOT
@politicsuncensored5617 Says:
Youtube-google censors & deletes comments greater than I believe anyone else. Unless you are supporting terrorist supporters in protest around our country and liberal democrats commenting on just about anything. Then it is just fine in what they want to leave in a comment. Shalom
@cafemolido5459 Says:
If they gonna get protection from government, then they should not censor
@juanfavela6597 Says:
Do we really want to turn into Australia, Brazil and most recently England? Places where an opinion (that counters the regime) will land you in court, going broke fighting for your freedom? Don’t give those communists an inch of your first amendment rights! Keep America great!
@gardengnome3249 Says:
Who will monitor the words written?
Who monitors the programmers?
The platform does not belong to the people so what you use it for is under the owner's terms.
For instance utube will not let me write certain words with out a warning to edit. "Richard cranium" in it's common parlance is always questioned by utube but they tell me islamists can write words not kindly to others.
I have had posts removed and I was not even warned yet I can be insulted and those posts remain.
The term "usual suspects" seems to be okay so far. I am sure this too will be warned about in the future. The programmers just have not caught on yet.
@jreese8284 Says:
Government can't stop speech; private citizens can, on their own property, in their own lives. We all censor speech by our choices of what to listen to or which platforms to contribute to. We need to understand what the amendments actually say, and what they mean. Certainly we ought to have thicker skin, all of us.
@TrueView-y8i Says:
When you present these questions in such a way that some of the possible implications are included in the questions, it is not much different from asking a question and then after getting an answer that may not reflect likely concerns, asking "what about ...?". Either of these two ways of asking something reflect an approach that has been cynically repressed for many decades. It was a way of thinking that was taught to me freely, both through literature, and in classrooms. People are instead encouraged to immediately pop out an answer that essentially equalizes everyone in the room. The dumbest kids in school can immediately feel that they are a part of the conversation. This is the age where the category "plays well with others" has been steadily applied to ever older populations. Adults are now judged by their ability to avoid any criticism or deeper thought that makes people with more mundane things on their minds avoid confrontation in ideas and concepts. the final extreme is creating perfect consumers with identical opinions who instead of honest criticism of ideas are taught to be oversensitive to hate speech. People get labeled as haters if they actually disagree with someone at the office. This issue demands much more carefully presented analysis; but for now, as a simple comment, should make sense to the individual who is aware of this problem. Be a "nation of sheep" is the rally cry. Do what the influencers say to do; and if they change their minds, you must change yours too. It is a challenge to mental sovereignty through misuse of pop psychology. The process of dumbing down the population is especially insidious when served up starting at an early age. We can see how malleable minds are at a young age when we witness what is taught in UNWRA schools. The result is a lifelong warping of what would probably otherwise be noble human minds. The suppression of critical thought is not just about disagreeing; it is also applied to going deeper to get at root causes. This is the ultimate taboo. Dumb populations are reliable consumers. A dumb person is a dumb voter. Yes, I have overused the term "dumb". It used to be acceptable to use the word when appropriate. Part of the legerdemain of concepts that destroy this word conflates the referral to dumb, as in stupid, with dumb, as in unable to speak for reasons one cannot control. This technique is widely applied in the destruction of other inconvenient but useful terms.
@Greymannn Says:
So, the Supreme Court decided that our 1a rights end on the internet? Hhmm. Then we have no 1a rights, because most speach is on the internet.
@canoedoc2390 Says:
Censorship is the first step on the road to tyranny, which is why it is the first, and the most important, amendment. Who gets to define hate speech? The communist Left always hides their will to power behind a pretense of woke, enlightened, compassion, and a presumption of moral superiority.
@marvenlunn6086 Says:
Platform = free speech . Publisher = they can censor whatever they want
@douglasneat9147 Says:
Yes they do......but they have to give up their legal protection.
@DADSGETNDOWN Says:
Next it will be in person. In real life, oh wait, they are doing it. During school meetings, City, County, State meetings.
They have now moved to online, video or audio meetings so they can hit s button, pull the plug when they don't like or agree with what they hear.
And just because they are "in there" doesn't mean they know a damn thing, nor have smarts.
@josephvagedes3850 Says:
Wow! Real question? Big tech companies have the right and privilege of doing whatever they want with their own company company. Big government has no right or privilege to decide anything about content on a private companies media platform platform. Freedom of press.Freedom of speech. Thank you and God bless you America. 3:45
@therealgrimreaper68 Says:
They’re a private business, they can do it.
@kbag54943 Says:
Here's an interesting thought for everyone... Should you loose your rights just because you've walked inside a private company? I would think not!
Seems like "private business" is just an excuse for abuse. .gov interaction seems to confirm it.
@kbag54943 Says:
If they are considered a platform (versus a publisher), then ((( NO ))) they shouldn't be able to censor speech.
If the opposite is true, then they should be held legally responsible for what is published.
@maryseaman312 Says:
regulation tends to be very subjective. Proof: People feeling violated because someone tells them something they do not want to hear. We recently witnessed subjective judgments found citizens being denied TRUTH.
@Bradwick1 Says:
Some of these people not know how to click on something else?
@Bradwick1 Says:
If the tech companies can censor then they are PUBLISHERS!
@cheapolegunguy Says:
I've NEVER been asked to leave ANYWHERE for speaking my mind. Besides, I'm in my own home, they shouldn't be able to censor me online.
@vashmatrix5769 Says:
If they censor they're a publisher.
@SorakaOTP462 Says:
I'm ready to face consequences but I want to have free speech and be able to say any racist stuff that I want without constantly getting my comments shadowbanned
@ValidatingUsername Says:
Does the USPS censor written mail in the United States does the library of congress censor what is written in books?
@ishtarlew598 Says:
Everyone has seen the biased election interference from big tech.
@danielhanawalt4998 Says:
Well, the way I see it is the social media companies are private companies maybe, or some are. Yet they've become the new town square. Being such, they don't have the right to censor speech as long as it's not threatening to someone. Also, I would ask who gets to decide what is hate speech or disinformation.
@mindyourownfuukingbiz6737 Says:
Vocal frrrrrryyyyyy lady 🤦♀️lord beam me up! 🤦♀️
As one of the few rational people said.....people should grow a thick skin and that she'd prefer TO KNOW what nutty, hateful, etc things people are saying ......instead of pretending the world is all flowers abd fancy , it is BETTER TO KNOW.
@janwells2199 Says:
News REPORTS of violence are not violence. Freedom of the media is essential for an informed populace. There can be rules regarding how graphic or lewd, but overall, allow reporting and opinions.
@Dwendele Says:
The first amendment ONLY protects us from the GOVERNMENT infringing on our free speech.... Not PRIVATE companies.
Now... If, like has been proven and ADMITTED, they censor speech at the direction of the government, THAT is covered under the First.
@CynthiaWithLove Says:
And they're American made companies. Sickening. Erasing their own and their people's inalienable rights.
@claudechase1648 Says:
YT has started backfilling censored comments with bots, am I the only one who has noticed this?
@creativechef25 Says:
I think the main factor that you are forgetting is that Big Tech, ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES!! They aren't a subsidiary of the US Government. The 1st Amendment states that Congress and by extension the Government shall not infringe on free speech. So for big tech to knock down certain speeches is within the companies rights to do so. Remember that "terms and conditions" you more than likely skipped? Yeah, its in there.
While I'm in no way defending big tech by no means, I'm just pointing out the glaringly obvious that many seem to forget. I do think Section 230 should be altered to prevent safety's to tech industries. They can't be a "publisher" and not have the ramifications
@PapaCoyote2U Says:
They censored the truth during Covid which turned out to be revealed by them as truth later. Of course I don’t think they should censor us now as they have proven it’s just an agenda ploy!
@ATHIP12 Says:
It's tough. One one side, free speech is good. On the other hand, social media is a sounding board for crazy groupthink that probably requires a bit of constructive censorship. Prager U constantly cries about censorship, but are probably one of the biggest peddlers of selective reality.
@nicfeller Says:
legally they can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't do it
@sandor2960 Says:
Without free speech, how will we know who the assholes are?
@sandor2960 Says:
YouTube removed RT's (Russian Television) channel from the platform entirely when they invaded Ukraine. What are they afraid of hearing? Do they think people can't evaluate information for themselves? Classic authoritarian, totalitarian, Orwellian censorship.
@freedomwriter1995 Says:
What the BLEEEEEP was the Supreme Court thinking with this judgment?!!!!!!!!!!!
LATEST COMMENTS