|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Oh he IS free to respond as far as I'm concerned. But more importantly everyone else is.
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2022 at 07:52:40 pm EST (Viewed 285 times)
Reply Subj: Re: An argument I'm having about free speech on the Thor board.
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2022 at 08:16:25 pm EST (Viewed 296 times)
As far as I'm concerned he can be reinstated to this board if he'd like to be. I told him that on the Thor board.(Which is still posted there and you can verify.) I see no reason why his being banned should be permanent. He got it for "bickering." But as far as I'm aware it wasn't a permanent banning, and it's not one if I have anything to say about it. It's not a capital offense. My feeling is if you think it's important that he respond to this, (and I certainly think that that would be fair) then we should unban him (if that's what he wants.)
Also, if you'll remember ironically he posted this explicitly "under the wire" so that I wouldn't be able to respond. But as I said, seeing as how there is a place where anyone can discuss this subject (namely here on the COMMUNITY BOARD and not the THOR BOARD ) I posted it here.
This started in the Thor board, where the moderator (rightly) said it doesn't belong, but this IS where it belongs. It never should have been posted there. This is the only appropriate place for it.
Most importantly, the issue of freedom of speech is more important that Norvel or my personal conversation, and the subject broadly is something (yourself included) that would benefit more from just my and his (or any two people's) takes. Which is why I posted it here. He's already an anonymous poster who posted on a public forum, so this isn't protected information. If you feel raw about him not being unable to post here (but you don't think he should be unbanned) perhaps you could have him send you a private message and you could post his reply.
That said those posting to social media signed an agreement. If somebody is in violation they should be kicked off upon repeat. For that matter they were created by companies. If they were government owned it would be more complicated to me. Also potentially infighting violence is illegal.
LGDB: I agree with the IF, THEN statement. If they signed and agreement, then they can be kicked off. My contention is that if the platform is sufficiently large, then the larger threat to the freedom of speech in a social sense is the private company that monopolies public spaces. I don't think anyone would argue that Twitter doesn't have their own terms and conditions. The larger political issue here isn't did Twitter act in accordance with their own contractual arrangement; it's is their control (and other similar entities) over public discourse a legitimate in the first place.
Even freedom of speech on a philosophical level or academic level is not absolute or mean what some want it to. Having taught for years myself not every students opinion is right. Nor free from consequence.
LGDB: Yes. As I mention in my reply. We've ALWAYS regulated speech. Speech regulation is by no means my contention. My contention is who should be the regulators. And while freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences, that of course doesn't make every "consequence" legitimate either. And those who dole out consequences can also be acting illegitimately or unfairly, and should ALSO be responsible ethically and legally for the consequences they deliver. My argument is that the people who should decide on the consequences should be the people that constitute the democracy, and we shouldn't arrange our society such that the people who are deciding consequences are unaccountable billionaires. If the people in this country want to decide that Trump is no longer able to appear in the public discourse then that can be decided via a juridical process that's sanctioned officially. transparently, and democratically.
---the late great Donald Blake
Posted with Google Chrome 96.0.4664.110 on Windows 10
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|