What is free speech?

[kestrel9]

How is free speech mediated by freedom of speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech



http://www.fsm-a.org/FSM_Participants.html
Berkley 1965 Free Speech march sponsored by supporters of Communist China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Avakian http://archive.is/bWk3W

http://www.fsm-a.org/stacks/avakian.html http://archive.is/SAQQ1

Bob Avakian is the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. In 1964, as a student at UC Berkeley, he was active in the FSM and was arrested during the Sproul Hall sit-in. In 1981 Avakian was forced into exile in France because of his revolutionary activities. There he demanded, but was denied, status as a political refugee. He continues to lead the RCP from exile today. Avakian's nine books and numerous articles are available at Revolution Books, located in Berkeley (510-848-1196) and other major U.S. cities. 

https://searchvoat.co/v/whatever/1933745 2017 Media Inspired Terrorism

https://medium.com/dose/my-wife-grew-up ... 85c25cb28b


https://archive.ph/CZpYi 2017 Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[3]

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".[4]

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used to justify speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[4] With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example, the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from foreign countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

[kestrel9]

https://www.talk.lol/viewpost?postid=633d0196d23de

[kestrel9]

https://thelibertydaily.com/following-m ... t-thought/
Following Musk Announcement, the Great Twitter Bot Purge Begins and It’s Far Worse Than Most Thought

Elon Musk renewed his bid to buy Twitter. The social media giant accepted his filing. It’s pretty much a done deal now.

As a result, the great Twitter bot purge has begun. Some conservative accounts noted they thought it was Twitter doing its thing of disconnecting people who actually want to follow each other. This does happen from time to time though at a very small scale.

Twitter seems to be doing a purge again

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/157 ... wsrc%5Etfw

Catturd ™
catturd2
Twitter has now removed 11,000 of my followers in the last hour.
3:55 PM · Oct 4, 2022
·Twitter for iPhone

As I noted, it’s probably Twitter but there’s a slight chance it’s someone else. Let’s start with the Twitter possibilities. The most likely scenario is that they’ve had ways to detect bot activity and can instantly delete bots at will. The reason they haven’t is because the vast majority of these bots are used by China, Iran, the World Economic Forum (or, to be more accurate, the Council for Inclusive Capitalism as the “action” arm of the Liberal World Order), or domestic radical leftist groups… pretty much anyone who hates conservatives, loves Democrats, or both.

A less likely scenario is that Twitter itself has a secret “IT” team that actually controls millions of bots. They use these to manipulate trends in favor of whatever top brass among the company as well as the Liberal World Order want them to promote. We saw these in action yesterday when Musk Tweeted his very reasonable peace plan. Initially it was received positively. Then, it suddenly started taking a downturn to favor Ukraine by a huge margin. It was impossible for it to have reflected real sentiment because of the inexplicable shift. It had to be bots.

But what if it’s not Twitter? What if an outside organization or government is fearful of getting busted once Musk takes the company private? The NSA comes to mind, as does the Chinese Communist Party. It wouldn’t take a huge team as long as they had the right technology to shift IPs and emulate various devices. If they were sophisticated enough to have AI-driven chat bots that could replicate the actions of an actual user, then there is literally no limit. A handful of people could operate millions of accounts.

Someone inside or outside of Twitter is purging the evidence of their bot farms that manipulate the platform and manufacture false public sentiment. Even before Elon Musk has purchased the company, a positive change has already happened.

[kestrel9]

Then and Now https://searchvoat.co/v/pics/2733942 oh the irony

phpBB [video]

[kestrel9]

Then and Now https://searchvoat.co/v/pics/2733942 oh the irony

phpBB [video]

This post was already downvoted once by the same person who created the linked original post. Clearly a sloppy oversight. But since it does fit the topic of this OP (free speech, freedom of speech and posing the question of how the latter mediates the former) I wanted to check out another very old post https://searchvoat.co/v/AskVoat/1241858

It brings up Reddit, Voat, spam in how it creates a need for Mods.

antiliberalsociety 6.1 years ago

What I saw on Reddit was a brigade of panty wadders crying about abuse, offensivity, etc. And what resulted was a mass promoting of new mods to "help" with the widespread "problem". Over the course of time it lead to attitudes, power trips, then an all out political silencing of any opposition. I'm aware of the trolls that came over to make Voat look like a safe house for racists & hate groups, but it just looks like another tactic. Hopefully I'm wrong, if it stays low scale it should be fine.

[antiliberalsociety]

Then and Now https://searchvoat.co/v/pics/2733942 oh the irony

phpBB [video]

This post was already downvoted once by the same person who created the linked original post. Clearly a sloppy oversight. But since it does fit the topic of this OP (free speech, freedom of speech and posing the question of how the latter mediates the former) I wanted to check out another very old post https://searchvoat.co/v/AskVoat/1241858

It brings up Reddit, Voat, spam in how it creates a need for Mods.

antiliberalsociety 6.1 years ago

What I saw on Reddit was a brigade of panty wadders crying about abuse, offensivity, etc. And what resulted was a mass promoting of new mods to "help" with the widespread "problem". Over the course of time it lead to attitudes, power trips, then an all out political silencing of any opposition. I'm aware of the trolls that came over to make Voat look like a safe house for racists & hate groups, but it just looks like another tactic. Hopefully I'm wrong, if it stays low scale it should be fine.

You know what else I saw on reddit? CP being used to invoke heavier moderator presence; and look at them now... You seem to "sloppy oversight" yourself when forgetting to mention that this site's admin sided with the pedophile over the rest of us. Banning after the fact doesn't erase that. You cucked to a pedo sympathizer, one whom also lost his own kids in court - what a cohencidence huh?

[kestrel9]

Then and Now https://searchvoat.co/v/pics/2733942 oh the irony

phpBB [video]

This post was already downvoted once by the same person who created the linked original post. Clearly a sloppy oversight. But since it does fit the topic of this OP (free speech, freedom of speech and posing the question of how the latter mediates the former) I wanted to check out another very old post https://searchvoat.co/v/AskVoat/1241858

It brings up Reddit, Voat, spam in how it creates a need for Mods.

antiliberalsociety 6.1 years ago

What I saw on Reddit was a brigade of panty wadders crying about abuse, offensivity, etc. And what resulted was a mass promoting of new mods to "help" with the widespread "problem". Over the course of time it lead to attitudes, power trips, then an all out political silencing of any opposition. I'm aware of the trolls that came over to make Voat look like a safe house for racists & hate groups, but it just looks like another tactic. Hopefully I'm wrong, if it stays low scale it should be fine.

You know what else I saw on reddit? CP being used to invoke heavier moderator presence; and look at them now... You seem to "sloppy oversight" yourself when forgetting to mention that this site's admin sided with the pedophile over the rest of us. Banning after the fact doesn't erase that. You cucked to a pedo sympathizer, one whom also lost his own kids in court - what a cohencidence huh?

"Heavier mod presence" what a joke, you brag about shutting forums down. FWIW in the case of 'this site's admin', his autist self didn't believe the pedo was a pedo, so technically, in his mind, he was not siding with a pedo over everyone else. In case you hadn't noticed his sporadically impaired judgement on how he comes off to people, or in other instances of just not caring (not unusual for autists), you claiming to staying butthurt over it, in light of how you treat people and are aware of what you intentionally do to hurt them, is rich! He's not a pedo sympathizer if he never believed the person to be a pedo. When I presented him with the logic of a zero tolerance over the issues of free speech, 'the site admin' choose the zero tolerance and publicly renounced pedophiles.

[antiliberalsociety]

This post was already downvoted once by the same person who created the linked original post. Clearly a sloppy oversight. But since it does fit the topic of this OP (free speech, freedom of speech and posing the question of how the latter mediates the former) I wanted to check out another very old post https://searchvoat.co/v/AskVoat/1241858

It brings up Reddit, Voat, spam in how it creates a need for Mods.

You know what else I saw on reddit? CP being used to invoke heavier moderator presence; and look at them now... You seem to "sloppy oversight" yourself when forgetting to mention that this site's admin sided with the pedophile over the rest of us. Banning after the fact doesn't erase that. You cucked to a pedo sympathizer, one whom also lost his own kids in court - what a cohencidence huh?

"Heavier mod presence" what a joke, you brag about shutting forums down. FWIW in the case of 'this site's admin', his autist self didn't believe the pedo was a pedo, so technically, in his mind, he was not siding with a pedo over everyone else. In case you hadn't noticed his sporadically impaired judgement on how he comes off to people, or in other instances of just not caring (not unusual for autists), you claiming to staying butthurt over it, in light of how you treat people and are aware of what you intentionally do to hurt them, is rich! He's not a pedo sympathizer if he never believed the person to be a pedo. When I presented him with the logic of a zero tolerance over the issues of free speech, 'the site admin' choose the zero tolerance and publicly renounced pedophiles.

"In his mind, he believed it."

Who else uses that tactic?

[kestrel9]

You know what else I saw on reddit? CP being used to invoke heavier moderator presence; and look at them now... You seem to "sloppy oversight" yourself when forgetting to mention that this site's admin sided with the pedophile over the rest of us. Banning after the fact doesn't erase that. You cucked to a pedo sympathizer, one whom also lost his own kids in court - what a cohencidence huh?

"Heavier mod presence" what a joke, you brag about shutting forums down. FWIW in the case of 'this site's admin', his autist self didn't believe the pedo was a pedo, so technically, in his mind, he was not siding with a pedo over everyone else. In case you hadn't noticed his sporadically impaired judgement on how he comes off to people, or in other instances of just not caring (not unusual for autists), you claiming to staying butthurt over it, in light of how you treat people and are aware of what you intentionally do to hurt them, is rich! He's not a pedo sympathizer if he never believed the person to be a pedo. When I presented him with the logic of a zero tolerance over the issues of free speech, 'the site admin' choose the zero tolerance and publicly renounced pedophiles.

"In his mind, he believed it."

Who else uses that tactic?

I forgot you don't chew gum on the move. Heads up, you've burned the bridge to the 'sink in' trope. Unless you want to make people laugh maybe find something else. I do think it'd be cool if you came up with another one just as funny, kitchen appliances maybe?

[antiliberalsociety]

"Heavier mod presence" what a joke, you brag about shutting forums down. FWIW in the case of 'this site's admin', his autist self didn't believe the pedo was a pedo, so technically, in his mind, he was not siding with a pedo over everyone else. In case you hadn't noticed his sporadically impaired judgement on how he comes off to people, or in other instances of just not caring (not unusual for autists), you claiming to staying butthurt over it, in light of how you treat people and are aware of what you intentionally do to hurt them, is rich! He's not a pedo sympathizer if he never believed the person to be a pedo. When I presented him with the logic of a zero tolerance over the issues of free speech, 'the site admin' choose the zero tolerance and publicly renounced pedophiles.

"In his mind, he believed it."

Who else uses that tactic?

I forgot you don't chew gum on the move. Heads up, you've burned the bridge to the 'sink in' trope. Unless you want to make people laugh maybe find something else. I do think it'd be cool if you came up with another one just as funny, kitchen appliances maybe?

Link to where I ever bragged about shutting forums down, I'll wait.