U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Free Speech Suppression

[jarman92]

Actually, free speech is violated, whenever anyone or organization censors it. You're confusing unconstitutional censorship of free speechwith government censorship of free speech. Our founders place such a premium on free political speech so as to preclude government from interfering with it. That private individuals and organizations aren't so encumbered doesn't make the freedom to free speech any less necessary.

The problem we have now is that government has been coordinating, colluding with private industry and using them as a proxy actor to interfere with speech while pretending that private industry is in no way, directly or indirectly, being compelled by government agencies and political parties to engage in censorship so politicians can wear a fig leaf of disassociation. Like it or not, the "Twitter files" and the current hearings in congress are exposing their illicit relationship of political coercion.

The gaping hole in this argument is that the “Twitter files” in no way showed coordination between Twitter and the government to suppress speech. And the only government actor who even tried to illicitly pressure Twitter to remove content was—surprise, surprise—Trump.

But I’m sure this totally legitimate and nonpartisan committee will be looking into that. 🙄

 

[siddavis]

Nice way to wiggle around. You don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, as an audience member when there is none as a way to cause panic in the theater. While flying on a passenger Airplane, you don’t have the right to call out to everyone “I have a bomb and it’s about to go off”, again only to cause panic.

Did you read what he provided? You do have that right, but you can also be held accountable for other laws that you might have broken or any results of your decision to yell that.

 

[jarman92]

Unless they were coerced into doing it by the government. Or unless there were effecting the outcome of an election. Political speech has even less restrictions than free speech. Then you add the fact that they were lying to protect one candidate and harm another candidate means that they have to register as part of the political process, which they did not. So by suppressing the speech of political candidates they were breaking the law.

This is just a pile of gibberish with some buzzwords thrown in. The first sentence is literally the only bit that is remotely accurate.

 

[gnipgnop]

For those of you that do not get out much, this is in fact called Fascism.

It's called Fantasy. Jim Jordan has no factual reason to believe the government was involved. It's just something the GOP has made up as a basis for a committee. They've done this before with things like Benghazi. They'll make a lot of insinuations in the press and then later quietly release a report that says they didn't find squat.

 

[siddavis]

For those of you that do not get out much, this is in fact called Fascism.

But if I say I'm anti, that makes it so.
"We have been clear..."

 

[azpekt]

this exactly - what republicans get a little bit of power what do they do N O T H I N G.

replace "republicans" with "politicians" - and you'll be 100% correct.

 

[siddavis]

The gaping hole in this argument is that the “Twitter files” in no way showed coordination between Twitter and the government to suppress speech. And the only government actor who even tried to illicitly pressure Twitter to remove content was—surprise, surprise—Trump.

But I’m sure this totally legitimate and nonpartisan committee will be looking into that. 🙄

OK, now go look up in-kind political contributions and the rules around those.

 

[gaximus]

What'd I miss? You stated there's no difference, and then juxtaposed free speech and violence.

The difference:
Free Speech - Government can't stop you from saying anything, Any other place can, places of employment, individuals, etc.
Hate speech - Is just hateful speech. They're not really related.

Someone can say your Mom is fat, and the government can do nothing about it, but they could get punched in the face.

 

[erikkfi]

They obviously have not, most of these deniers are waiting for an exposé on CNN (Clinton News Network).

If it's not reported by a reputable organization, there's nothing to deny in the first place.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

If there was collusion, then there has to be consequences. The companies will be on record, and at least they might consider the consequences in the future.

 

[SFjohn]

Did you read what he provided? You do have that right, but you can also be held accountable for other laws that you might have broken or any results of your decision to yell that.

That’s like saying you have the right to kill a random stranger on the street for no good reason. Because you can do something, doesn’t make it a right.

 

[jarman92]

OK, now go look up in-kind political contributions and the rules around those.

FEC finds Twitter didn’t break law by blocking spread of Hunter Biden story

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has ruled that Twitter did not break election laws in October when it blocked users from sharing links to a New York Post story about President Biden’s s…

thehill.com

 

[Chazak]

Wasn't Jordan accused of idly standing by as school kids were molested while he was a wrestling coach?

 

[Chazak]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Meaning what in this case?

Me thinks you just liked the sound of that.

 

[jarman92]

replace "republicans" with "politicians" - and you'll be 100% correct.

In the last 2 years, Congressional Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan (trillions in economic stimulus and Covid relief), the Inflation Reduction Act (massive energy investments, capped prescription drug prices), the CHIPS Act (massive investment in American manufacturing), the bipartisan infrastructure bill (self-explanatory), the Respect for Marriage Act (protects the validity of same-sex marriages), and the most significant gun legislation in 30+ years. You don't have to agree with any or all of it, but to claim that the Dems don't do anything is ridiculous.

 

[kaycrystal626]

Don't worry, any idiot can voice their opinions as facts!

 

[Arbuthnott]

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Hate Speech Suppression

There, fixed it for you.

No, you have got it wrong. It's about the suppression of Free Speech. The idea that a few snowflakes can claim to have been offended, and as a consequence then censor legitimate and reasonable expression of ideas, is totally intolerable. The use of the Noble Lie by authority, with governments sharing total ********, on the basis that it is somehow in the public best interest, is not acceptable. Censorship and propaganda being used to stifle Free Speech. Far too much of this has been going on, and it is time to get back to realistic public values and honest exchange of information.

Not being from the USA, I have no idea who this bloke is, but strength to him!

 

[Chazak]

Benghazi - Two years, $7 million and nothing. This time it will cost us more and produce the same results.

The elephants are totally out of touch with the majority of Americans.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Why would you subpoena Musk/Twitter when they have been dumping the bag for more than 2 months now?

Funny how it wasn't a partisan politics or a waste of resources to spend 6 years and millions of dollars to investigate Trump and come up empty handed

They didn't come up empty-handed, and the lack of an indictment thus far is probably why Trump continues skirting and breaking laws, which will ultimately be his downfall.

Do you think all members of crime syndicates are caught and convicted in a couple of years?

 

[BenGoren]

Apple de-platformed many app developers between 200 and 2022 from participating In the Apple App Store because Apple disagreed with the political opinions of the people that were using the app developer’s apps and the app developer was not moderating content to Apple’s satisfaction.

While I would disagree with your description of the content as “political opinions” … so what?

Does Rachel Maddow have a right to demand that Fox Network air her show in prime time — or at any time?

Do I have the right to demand that Walmart should sell the oranges growing from the tree in my back yard? They’re quite delicious; isn’t it criminal of them to refuse to sell them for me?

The App Store doesn’t even pretend to be an open free-for-all market. Apple can and does exercise its editorial right to select whom it does and doesn’t want to do business with, and it owes no explanation as to why to anybody but itself.

Whether or not that’s a profitable, let alone wise, way to run a company … well, that’s what Saint Smith’s Free Hand is all about, right?

There’s not even the pretense of shortage of platforms where people from any part of the political spectrum can air their opinions. To pick one obvious example, from what I understand, COVID- and election-related conspiracy theories are all the rage on Truth Social. Which, of course, is exactly how it’s supposed to work: if you don’t like what the New York Times publishes, you’re more than welcome to start your own newspaper where you can publish the stories that you think should be published. Whether or not you can convince people to buy the newspaper, whether or not you can afford to continue publishing if not … that’s your problem. The Times has readership and financial troubles of its own to worry about, too — but the point, of course, is that you can’t tell the editorial board of the Times what to do any more than they can tell you what you can and can’t publish in your own paper.

Sheesh. You’d think that vociferous “pro-business” and “libertarian” and “free market” and “First Amendment” and “American Values” types who so often align themselves with the Republican Party would understand this sort of thing.

I mean, literally. What is more American, more Free Speech, more business-friendly than Apple being allowed to decide whose wares they do and don’t sell in their own store?

Do you really want Soviet-style market control where the government makes five-year sales plans for Apple that they dare not alter on pain of imprisonment in the Gulag? If so, why are you wrapping yourself in Old Glory, when the Hammer and Sickle is obviously where your true allegiance lies?

b&

 

[Arbuthnott]

Not as an agent for the government it can't.
SMH

Robert Kennedy Jr is in the process of taking legal action against a cabal called the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), involving all of this group, plus Reuters, the BBC, the ABC in Australia, and numerous other social and news media outlets. Kennedy claims that TNI acts to decide on "Truth" and then act to censor and deplatform any opposition. This initiative of the House appears to be aligned with that legal action. We see the action of this cabal in Australia. FaceBook, who in principle should not interfere, is banning commentary that opposes the passing of a referendum to create and Apartheid system in Australia with a separate government based on race. This is intolerable interference over things that FaceBook in principle has no idea about. Who are they to try to push Australians into having separate race-based government bodies? Great that the House is investigating

 

[RalfTheDog]

Smh. Someone needs to inform Jordan that as a PRIVATE COMPANY Twitter can ban, delete and censor at will and his rights to free speech aren't being violated

That right is actually spelled out in the United States Constitution under the Freedom of Association Clause. A private company has every right to limit speech on their platform, any way they want.

1. The first amendment is about GOVERNMENT limiting free speech. It does not apply to private companies. If it does, how about a subpoena for *Truth* Social?

2. To the uninformed here, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. If a person or persons call for the extermination of a group of people that is hate speech. Case in point, pre-WWII Germany.

One very good definition of hate speech that is not protected is any speech that calls for insurrection. Speech that calls for crimes to be committed or harm to others is also not protected. You are also not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, just to watch people get trampled. (I know it's fun. Many things that are fun are not legal.)

I don’t know what did you miss, the whole point of my post was that hate speech is free speech under the 1st as long as it’s speech only.

Not if it calls for an insurrection. Not if it calls for others to break the law. Not if it calls for violence to be committed against others.

Hmmm, so much for working on things like fixing inflation and lowering healthcare costs.

If they did that, they would be Democrats.

Vitamins, such as Vitamin C, D, Zinc, and others, haven't been verified by the FDA to promote health. Telling someone to take Vitamin C, D, and Zinc to help keep covid and other cold viruses at bay is as effective, per the FDA, as drinking snake oil.

To what you said, there's no right to promote Ivermectin, but there's also no legal right to prevent its promotion for it, which was happening all over the place.

If I remember correctly, the specifics of taking Ivermectin were that you needed to take it as a preventative before getting covid, or before the symptoms appeared, or something like that. I haven't seen any study on that aspect of taking Ivermectin, to prove that it didn't help (or that it hurt). So while I'm not about to get on my soap box and proclaim that Ivermectin is the second coming, if someone wants to, they should be allowed to, and there was definitely collusion against it.

I don't know if people remember, but in the beginning, masks were bad and you shouldn't wear them. Then we had to wear them for over a year. Now, evidence suggests that wearing them didn't actually help. Good science means rolling with the punches, accepting that a consensus changes when we discover new evidence, and dissecting novel ideas to see if they improve our understanding. Unfortunately, the scientific community has a habit of vilifying anyone who suggests science that goes against the prevailing theories: Galileo and Copernicus immediately come to mind.

First off, there is no medical evidence or reason to believe that Ivermectin would be effective in preventing the virus. If I was to go out and tell people, just put a jar of pickle juice on your head and sing the "Star Spangled Banner" and you won't get the virus, I would be committing medical fraud. The horse pills are the same thing only potentially more damaging. (Ivermectin makes it more likely for a virus to cross the blood brain barrier. This is not a good thing when you have a nasty viral infection.)

Yes. There is. People pretending that these are "conservative" ideas and not merely the common thought processes of nearly all real people.

I don't know a single person I respect that has once stated one of these "Ideas." Anyone spouting this garbage should not be called, "People."

 

[NPC Compliant]

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Hate Speech Suppression

There, fixed it for you.

Suppression of hate speech, the age old cry of the oppressor

 

[Arbuthnott]

“U.S. House Judiciary Committee Republicans plan to investigate whether the federal government "colluded" with tech companies to ‘suppress free speech’ on issues like COVID-19.”

I think we’re all agreed that, for example, there is no legal right to promote actual snake oil as a cure for cancer, no?

Then there also is no legal right to promote either Ivermectin nor bleach injections as a cure for human viral respiratory infections.

The scary part is that people so woefully ignorant of basic physiology have positions of power within our government. I don’t know what the cure is for that kind of stupid when it infects society to such an extent.

b&

IN this case, the collusion may well relate to claims about the effectiveness of the vaccines that were ridiculous and quickly demonstrated to be false. But any public commentary to let others know were deleted and the commentators deplatformed. The snake oil was perhaps the claims about the vaccine rather than speculation about taking more vitamin D or zinc oxide or whatever.

 

[siddavis]

That’s like saying you have the right to kill a random stranger on the street for no good reason. Because you can do something, doesn’t make it a right.

No it's not like saying that at all. You are claiming that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT protected speech under the 1st. It is, and you were provided the rational and description of where that myth started. Being ignorant and perpetuating that myth using your free speech is also your right. Unfortunately you continue to take us up on it.

Free speech is a right stated in the constitution. Show me the right to kill in the constitution and we can continue with this silly analogy.