this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

News

22876 readers
3775 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former President Donald Trump’s frequent use of Twitter lurked in the background as the justices weighed whether an official’s online activities can constitute government action.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that members of the public in some circumstances can sue public officials for blocking them on social media platforms, deciding a pair of cases against the backdrop of former President Donald Trump’s contentious and colorful use of Twitter.

The court ruled unanimously that officials can be deemed "state actors" when making use of social media and can therefore face litigation if they block or mute a member of the public.

In the two cases before the justices, they ruled that disputes involving a school board member in Southern California and a city manager in Michigan should be sent back to lower courts for the new legal test to be applied.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm surprised that our right wing Supreme Court would rule this way. What am I missing? Because they have not lately been ruling in good faith.

[–] juicy@lemmy.today 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Free speech is not a left or right issue anymore. The left is anti-free-speech as often as the right is. The left is happy to silence speech it doesn't like when it's online or on campus. The right is happy to silence it when it's a library book or story time.

I hope leftists wake up as they watch anti-Zionist speech get silenced by the mechanisms they used to use against the right. The answer to bad speech, whether hate speech or misinformation, is more speech.

Edit: spelling

[–] baru@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Free speach is not a left or right issue anymore.

Ah, there's the usual "both sides" "argument".

[–] juicy@lemmy.today 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I gave specific examples. Be specific in your response. Where was I wrong?

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The whole thing, from start to finish.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah so you are full of shit! I got you

[–] Lupus108@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nope. They're right, you're wrong.

You didn't even give specific examples as you pretended to, it was just a blanket "both sides do it!" You just used more words.

And " the only answer to bad speech is more speech" is just factually and provable wrong. The Nazis and their enemies had free speech during the Weimarer Republik, they all used it extensively, the social democrats, the liberals, the communists, the clerics, the workers, the unions, they all used their right to free speech to try and fight the "bad speech" the Nazis could deploy openly, do you know how that story continues? They all lost their free speech because they were forced to let the cancer that is fascism roam free, with lies, propaganda, misinformation, calls for violence and just pure hate.

So the "bad speech" got plenty of "more speech" to counter but it didn't change anything.

[–] juicy@lemmy.today 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.

Here's more specifics: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4317052-what-the-vexed-history-of-campus-hate-speech-codes-teaches-us-about-fighting-antisemitism/

https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and

[–] Lupus108@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.

That's exactly my point, the Nazis never acted in good faith, they were never beholden to the freedoms they used, in fact they used those freedoms to get rid of them, so to protect them we have to restrict them. So unfortunately we have to exclude some things from the protection Democratic values can deliver. For example the swastika in Germany - all it represents, all it refers to in that context is anti democratic, anti freedom so if you show it outside of a educational context we have to assume it represents exactly that - that you want to get rid of democratic values like free speech, so we exclude that symbol from the protection of our democratic values TO protect said democratic values.

It's a little paradox and a lotta complicated. We should never take those measures lightly but imo they have to exist, because history showed that if you don't protect them , some forces are willing to use them to destroy them.

Your first link shows what happens when we don't apply those measures carefully and too broadly, the framework has to be very precise for them to make sense, otherwise they do the job of the deconstructors of democracy for them.

Your second Link refers to a private entity, those can not restrict free speech, they can censor what speech they want to host and it is their right under free speech to do so, so it is irrelevant. Like if you're in my house talking shit I can kick you out, no free speech was impeded by that action, I just exercised my free speech to show you the door.