D&D and the rising pandemic

[Umbran]

No, but I also don't think you're talking about the ability to infringe speech, but a much broader thing.

No, I'm pointing out what the framers of the Constitution were actually worried about. They were concerned with the power of the State falling on people for BadWrongSpeech. They were not concerned with whether John Q. Public could speak on the particular platform he wanted.

In that context, I do really think companies have more power now than the government. In that context.

I think you are conflating "disallowing use of a particular platform" with "infringement of speech". This suggests a presupposition of entitlement to platform which is guaranteed... nowhere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, I'm pointing out what the framers of the Constitution were actually worried about. They were concerned with the power of the State falling on people for BadWrongSpeech. They were not concerned with whether John Q. Public could speak on the particular platform he wanted.

But yet I'll note they did stop at preventing punishment for speech, but infringing it all. Because at the time, the only force big enough to do that meaningfully was government.

I think you are conflating "disallowing use of a particular platform" with "infringement of speech". This suggests a presupposition of entitlement to platform which is guaranteed... nowhere.

When, in practice, almost all meaningful speech is constrained by the chokepoints of a very limited number of platforms, I'm arguing there's not much meaningful difference.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But yet I'll note they did stop at preventing punishment for speech, but infringing it all. Because at the time, the only force big enough to do that meaningfully was government.

This is moving far afield of the topic, so I will only briefly address this. From a historical perspective, this is incorrect for the following reasons:
1. At the founding, there was a robust debate as to whether the First Amendment applied to only restrictions on speech (what we would call prior restraints), or also applied to punishments after you spoke. This issue was left unsettled for some time.
2. In addition, this was a specific restraint on the federal government; it did not apply to the states until much later. While some states protected speech, many did not.
3. Finally, almost everything people think about the First Amendment is the product of 20th Century judges; even through the late 19th Century, it was considered unexceptional for the government to restrict speech (for example, censorship by the post office).


Regardless of any of this, Umbran is correct- having a private platform not carry your message doesn't meaningfully restrict your ability to speak. Choose a different platform.

EDIT- to move it back to the topic, it would be a shame if SnarfBook was forced to carry Covid Misinformation because I had to "both sides" everything, regardless of what I wanted.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Edit: I think I'm going to drop this because, barring the question of barring misinformation (which I'm not hostile to no matter who's doing it) its manifestly offtopic for this thread.

 

[Umbran]

But yet I'll note they did stop at preventing punishment for speech, but infringing it all. Because at the time....

At the time, there was no legal framework of what did and did not constitute "punishment" for them to apply such a concept in the document.

Indeed, I just removed someone from this thread for spreading misinformation. Was I "punishing" them, or I was I protecting the community from dangerous nonsense and acrimony from the arguments that would ensue if I had not?

When, in practice, almost all meaningful speech...

You do not have the right to "meaningful" speech. You do not have a right to access some number of ears or eyes to listen to you. You do not have the right of people listening to you at all. Finding a platform is your problem. You seem to confuse the right of free speech to the right of access to audience of your choosing, and no, you do not have that, and that was never intended by the framers of the Constitution.

Edit: Sorry, I was writing while you were bowing out. I'll leave this out of a desire to not pretend things didn't happen.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As I said, I have no problem with the idea you want to limit misinformation spread to the public woe; I just think (and nothing I've read here has changed my mind) that the ability to limit speech in the modern period is far more in the hands of private individuals than it has been in the past, and to act like that's somehow more acceptable seems to take a peculiar attitude toward what the point in limits on the government doing the same is. But whether those limits are sometimes necessary (as they are here) is orthogonal to that.

This is entirely incorrect.

The ability to speak to a large audience, even a worldwide one, is much greater than it has ever been.

When, prior to the last decade or so, would a person normally be able to get an audience that is not just local, but national or international?

And to be clear- people aren't banned from the internet. There are numerous platforms; including numerous social media platforms, not to mention the ability to easily publicize your own information on your own site.

Quite simply, people today are complaining that they don't have the unfettered right to access global audiences however and whenever they want on private platforms. Which is something! I am quite sure that if someone argued, for example, that they were being denied free speech because, in 1970, CBS wasn't putting them on their nightly news to spew their opinions with Walter Cronkite, the thought would have been appropriately rubbished.

The fact that the crazy conspirator is able to do more than just scream at clouds in the local park due to modern technology doesn't mean that they have no speech rights- far from it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Edit: Let myself be dragged back in, changed my mind.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Edit: Sorry, I was writing while you were bowing out. I'll leave this out of a desire to not pretend things didn't happen.

That's fair when I edited it after the fact.

 

[cmad1977]

Sure, but given the new tech of these jabs and the fact that long term testing has not been done and they are still deemed experimental, I'm not so sure you can discount their hesitancy and equate them to jabs of old - which have gone through the standard testing process and are not deemed experimental. Details matter.

This isn’t accurate at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To be clear: mRNA vaccine tech is @20 years old. The only thing “experimental” about it is the efficacy of new vaccines using the technology, not the tech itself.

Right now, it’s being adopted as THE industry standard going forward in large part because of the speed with which new & effective vaccines can be created. Some in the pharma world have declared older methodologies functionally “dead” or “dying”. Another plus is their decreased odds of harmful side effects compared to old tech vaccines using killed or weakened viruses.

It’s also showing promise as a method by which we can produce vaccines for pathogens that have- thus far- eluded scientists’ attempts to create vaccines to. This- plus its speed- can also potentially aid in fighting viruses that mutate rapidly (influenza) or combat diseases that affect so few people that they’re not “economically feasible“ to develop vaccines for- the so called orphan diseases.