New censorship-resistant social media solution now available!

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, WillingRawVerse said:

 

I agree with the "fire" scenario. But the Constitution states that we can talk freely about the government and protest, which can disrupt governmental workings. The civil rights movement rings a bell here.

As for alternative facts, you have to be more prepared than they are when it comes to facts.

I don't know about you, but I've spoken against bad ideas several times and have come out on top more than a few times. Reason, I took time and effort to learn about what others were thinking and did research so that every counterargument was countered with more facts.

If you don't want to challenge bad ideas, then that's on you, but I will not back down from countering bad ideas. The best thing about free speech, even hate speech, shows where someone is standing in their beliefs. Once those beliefs are exposed, then they can be countered.

Again, the freedom is not unlimited. Yes, we are free to criticize the government, its policies, its practices, its officers, the laws upon which it is based. We are free to  call for change - within the system. The system without which we wouldn’t have the freedom to speak. We are not free to rally and foment discord among our countrymen with the intent of overthrowing the very system that guarantees that freedom. The civil rights movement was not an attempted coup d’etat, and when expression presents a real and present danger to persons and property, it is stopped.

You may may make a public speech about whatever you want in a National Park - but only in a specific place chosen by the Park Superintendent, and it doesn’t have to be where anyone can hear you, or at a time you find convenient. That’s because all the rest of the citizens have a vested right to the enjoyment of the peace and tranquility of their park without having to listen to you rant. You have a right to speak - you don’t have a right to be listened to.

I agree that bad ideas thrive in silence, just as noxious weeds thrive in an untended garden. But the best idea is not to give them a chance to take root in the garden to begin with. You don’t wait until an invasive pest has infested your garden before you root it out, you don’t give it a place to grow at all.

Fox ‘News’, unmoderated X, Truth Social, and other such ‘truth tellers’ are basically greenhouses for invasive weeds that spread their insidious seed on the wind like dandelions. Yes, on an individual level you fight false facts with true ones, but you can’t do that at the scale it’s proliferating. You’re also assuming you can overpower someone’s belief, and that simply isn’t so. For some people it doesn’t matter how good your information is, because none of it’s going to make it past their ears.

So you can’t just say and let everyone lie and deceive all they want in the name of free speech. Lies, deceit and hate speech are an acid that corrodes, weakens and damages the foundations of a civil society; truth does not, even when it leads to disagreement. I would submit that not everything that comes out of a person’s mouth qualifies as ‘speech’ that should be given protected status - some of it is simply noise - all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[pupHawaii]

hmm .. so i must have been asleep (or my head has been too far up twitter's ass!) - this is the first time i've heard of this .. totally my fault - no one else.   I'm going to have to reread it cuz it's hot and humid as fuck here (as in - sweating just sitting still) (sorry to all you folks in snow country!) and my brain just isn't functioning.

I did manage to understand something - I did log into s3x.social as puphawaii@breeding.zone - it was accepted - and i even got an email from s3x support verifying it was me .. nice!

okay i gotta go take a cold shower before i melt .. 😉

[Guest]

18 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I agree that bad ideas thrive in silence, just as noxious weeds thrive in an untended garden. But the best idea is not to give them a chance to take root in the garden to begin with. You don’t wait until an invasive pest has infested your garden before you root it out, you don’t give it a place to grow at all.

Fox ‘News’, unmoderated X, Truth Social, and other such ‘truth tellers’ are basically greenhouses for invasive weeds that spread their insidious seed on the wind like dandelions. Yes, on an individual level you fight false facts with true ones, but you can’t do that at the scale it’s proliferating. You’re also assuming you can overpower someone’s belief, and that simply isn’t so. For some people it doesn’t matter how good your information is, because none of it’s going to make it past their ears.

So you can’t just say and let everyone lie and deceive all they want in the name of free speech. Lies, deceit and hate speech are an acid that corrodes, weakens and damages the foundations of a civil society; truth does not, even when it leads to disagreement. I would submit that not everything that comes out of a person’s mouth qualifies as ‘speech’ that should be given protected status - some of it is simply noise - all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You made a couple of good points there. Thank you for that. But we can't dictate what other people say. No matter what it is. That's guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. I also agree that an individual doesn't have a right to be listened to.

I don't watch mainstream media at all, well except for nonpolitical bullshit, which isn't much these days. I source my information from independent sources from unbiased news journalists. They tell the truth and only send out truthful information that has been verified. I would classify myself as an Independent Conservative. Open-minded and willing to research information presented to me. I form my own opinion. Not what's being shoved down our throats every day. So there's that.

Hate speech has been around since the creation of man. It will always be there because evil will always be there. We just have to be better people than the evil around us.

 

BTW: I'm really enjoying our conversation. The world needs more of open communication.

[ErosWired]

4 hours ago, WillingRawVerse said:

But we can't dictate what other people say. No matter what it is. That's guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

No, it isn’t. The First Amendment guarantees that the Federal Government cannot force you to speak or prevent you from speaking, save under certain circumstances where other rights to life and liberty are considered paramount.

But outside of that, we absolutely can and do constrain each other’s speech. If you come into my house, I can tell you I don’t want to hear one word about Donald Trump (I don’t), and if you insist on talking about him, you will be shown the door. The owner of a private restaurant need not put up with some loudmouth asshole raving about a stolen election if he’s disturbing the other diners. A man has no right to stand up in the middle of a church service and proclaim that the Devil is God - he can expect to be tossed out on his ear.

We even have a ubiquitous phrase in our language we use for the purpose of telling each other to quit saying things: Shut up.

Now, the big issue with constraining harmful speech - and words can be dangerous - is prior restraint; proscribing before the fact what can and cannot be said. There are specific protections for the press against prior restraint, because the society recognized that that’s draconian. But it doesn’t mean that just because you aren’t prevented from letting something out of your mouth that there won’t be a consequence for doing so.

A person isn’t free to say false things about another person that may result in harms to that person. Talking (or writing) smack can get you sued for slander, libel, defamation of character, and you can lose that case because there are some things you are simply not allowed to say because they are false.

Not all speech is equal. Not all ideas are equal. What is good for a society is a measurable set of metrics based on whether its members are able to live and thrive in peace and without undue conflict and danger. So there are some things that people do and say that simply are not good to do and say when the benefit of the whole must be considered, and those excesses cannot be allowed to go unchecked. We call such actions offenses, or at their worst, crimes.

Speech is not a harmless act - on the contrary, speech is powerful, or we would not guard it so zealously. But not all speech is equally good to say, and because it can have power for great ill, some speech reaches the level of offense…and some reaches the level of crime. Responsible speech deserves to be defended by the blood of patriots; malicious slander and self-serving, deceptive falsehoods do not.

Edited January 27 by ErosWired

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

No, it isn’t. The First Amendment guarantees that the Federal Government cannot force you to speak or prevent you from speaking, save under certain circumstances where other rights to life and liberty are considered paramount.

But outside of that, we absolutely can and do constrain each other’s speech. If you come into my house, I can tell you I don’t want to hear one word about Donald Trump (I don’t), and if you insist on talking about him, you will be shown the door. The owner of a private restaurant need not put up with some loudmouth asshole raving about a stolen election if he’s disturbing the other diners. A man has no right to stand up in the middle of a church service and proclaim that the Devil is God - he can expect to be tossed out on his ear.

We even have a ubiquitous phrase in our language we use for the purpose of telling each other to quit saying things: Shut up.

Now, the big issue with constraining harmful speech - and words can be dangerous - is prior restraint; proscribing before the fact what can and cannot be said. There are specific protections for the press against prior restraint, because the society recognized that that’s draconian. But it doesn’t mean that just because you aren’t prevented from letting something out of your mouth that there won’t be a consequence for doing so.

A person isn’t free to say false things about another person that may result in harms to that person. Talking (or writing) smack can get you sued for slander, libel, defamation of character, and you can lose that case because there are some things you are simply not allowed to say because they are false.

Not all speech is equal. Not all ideas are equal. What is good for a society is a measurable set of metrics based on whether its members are able to live and thrive in peace and without undue conflict and danger. So there are some things that people do and say that simply are not good to do and say when the benefit of the whole must be considered, and those excesses cannot be allowed to go unchecked. We call such actions offenses, or at their worst, crimes.

Speech is not a harmless act - on the contrary, speech is powerful, or we would not guard it so zealously. But not all speech is equally good to say, and because it can have power for great ill, some speech reaches the level of offense…and some reaches the level of crime. Responsible speech deserves to be defended by the blood of patriots; malicious slander and self-serving, deceptive falsehoods do not.

 

I agree that a private individual has a right to what they hear in a private setting. But once out on the sidewalk, there's nothing you can do about it. Slander, libel, and defamation are different things. That's why there are laws against it. But during the day, I can stand outside in public and talk about whatever I want. And never said all speech is equal. Just the right to voice an opinion or belief. I agree that there should be something done, but the only way to do that is with a Constitutional Amendment.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. Just in case you didn't know. If you do, great.

 

And that's not going to happen anytime soon with how divided this country is right now.

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, WillingRawVerse said:

I can stand outside in public and talk about whatever I want.

True, but if a man stands on a public streetcorner in town and start shouting his opinion or belief that men should be allowed to fuck young boys, I think you’ll find the police will bring it to a halt. If you stand in the middle of the town square at publicly announce that it is your opinion that the mayor should have a bullet put through his head, that might be construed as a threat against an elected public official, and gain you an interview with the authorities. If you stand on the streetcorner and insist loudly and persistently enough that, in your opinion, you are the Risen Christ, you may find yourself invited to an interview of a different sort.

In any case, for purposes of this broader discussion, I’m not really talking about standing on the streetcorner and speaking. I’m talking about the fact that so many people are assuming that internet platforms are the equivalent of a public streetcorner, when they are not. Access to an internet platform from which to speak is a privilege, not a right, and, one which many people take for granted because they mistakenly assume it’s free, just like going outside and standing on the sidewalk.

In fact, companies host the infrastructure that enables this form of expression. Without access to their proprietary property and systems, their capital and effort, we would not have the ability to communicate this way. It is only because they choose to permit access free of charge (electing to get their revenue from alternative sources like advertising) that many people have any access at all, and they could change that at any time. If tomorrow RawTOP decided that Breedingzone membership would henceforth be by paid subscription of $30/month, ErosWired would be making no more posts here.

Because the tech firms that provide this open opportunity by doing so facilitate harmful communications, and are making a profit from doing so (and the absolutely are), they bear a responsibility to mitigate the harms that their capitalist endeavor brings to the society. Thus we have debate over the fact that Meta and X have both cut the staff from their divisions that are supposed to moderate content. It does not require a constitutional amendment (I am quite familiar with the process, thank you) for a platform to moderate its content, and indeed there are laws that currently mandate that some content may not be carried. We may not place advertisements that traffic human beings, for instance, and I think you’ll probably find that standing on any streetcorner and announcing that you’re looking for an underaged person to fuck will get you silenced - and hauled into the station - just as quickly.

It does not require a constitutional amendment for those responsible for hosting our online public discourse to decide to make it a place where people speak civilly and responsibly to one another. Our speech on these platforms isn’t “free” - it’s subject to the Terms Of Service we agree to for every site we log onto, whether we pay to log onto it or not. We are not standing in an open public space and breathing free air here; we are in an electronic space in a private company’s electronic property, and the condition of our being here is that we have agreed to do what we’re told, or leave and speak no more.

Do not imagine that ‘free’ means ‘unfettered’ or unlimited’. Sure, you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences if you say certain things. What many people now seem to think is that they should have the right to speak without consequences, and I suspect this is a direct result of the lack of accountability for bad action online - people have been getting away with saying anything they want online without paying a price for it, and now they think it’s a right. But it’s not. We just haven’t figured out how to hold people accountable for their actions online yet.

[brnbk]

5 hours ago, ErosWired said:

No, it isn’t. The First Amendment guarantees that the Federal Government cannot force you to speak or prevent you from speaking, save under certain circumstances ........... The owner of a private restaurant need not put up with some loudmouth asshole raving about a stolen election if he’s disturbing the other diners. A man has no right to stand up in the middle of a church service and proclaim that the Devil is God - he can expect to be tossed out on his ear.

We even have a ubiquitous phrase in our language we use for the purpose of telling each other to quit saying things: Shut up.

 

I believe you are missing the point. Of course a guy who claims in a "Christian Church" that the Devil is a god, or God, can expected to be tossed out on his ear or perhaps spend a day in jail for disturbing the Sunday service. But does he have the right to state that and inform the church goers, that their belief in God, is mistaken is the question here. Many churchgoers might find his view distasteful and even violent, but how much freedom does this man have to express his beliefs is the hallmark of a civilized and truly free country. 

 

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

True, but if a man stands on a public streetcorner in town and start shouting his opinion or belief that men should be allowed to fuck young boys, I think you’ll find the police will bring it to a halt. If you stand in the middle of the town square at publicly announce that it is your opinion that the mayor should have a bullet put through his head, that might be construed as a threat against an elected public official, and gain you an interview with the authorities. If you stand on the streetcorner and insist loudly and persistently enough that, in your opinion, you are the Risen Christ, you may find yourself invited to an interview of a different sort.

Not so long ago, maybe just a few years in some countries and a few decades in the States, if someone expressed their opinion or belief or desire that men should be allowed to fuck men, they would find the police rushing to bring it to a halt. My point is deciding which set of beliefs are correct or acceptable is difficult as standards and views change over time. In ancient Britain, a king could demand that his wife prove she had not committed adultery by passing through fire. In Islamic law and practice, a "marriage" conducted with a what we would consider an underage girl - under the age of 18 but has reached puberty is legal!! Some cases of free speech are easy to decide. Fucking young and I am assuming you meant -underage --boys would be clearly seen as offensive and criminal in most jurisdictions. However, if someone insists that his religion allowed a "marriage" to an underage girl... and that he should be allowed to at least state his religious practice, if not practice it... how should the State/powers that be react. 

 

Of course crimes such as calling for the murder of a mayor or a citizen is always a crime, but if someone wishes to inform the world that he is the next Christ or even the real Christ, shouldn't he have the right to it including informing on social media, gathering enough followers and setting up a new group/religion etc.? After all when the historical Christ set up His religion, did not the powers that be disapprove and demand His death! I am assuming the divine Masters claims must have assumed absurd to many people of His generation. 

On 1/26/2024 at 7:29 PM, ErosWired said:

 

Fox ‘News’, unmoderated X, Truth Social, and other such ‘truth tellers’ are basically greenhouses for invasive weeds that spread their insidious seed on the wind like dandelions. Yes, on an individual level you fight false facts with true ones, but you can’t do that at the scale it’s proliferating. You’re also assuming you can overpower someone’s belief, and that simply isn’t so. For some people it doesn’t matter how good your information is, because none of it’s going to make it past their ears.

So you can’t just say and let everyone lie and deceive all they want in the name of free speech. Lies, deceit and hate speech are an acid that corrodes, weakens and damages the foundations of a civil society; truth does not, even when it leads to disagreement

Who decides what is true or false. Somethings are fairly easy and some moderately easy. For e.g. say on the contentious issues of vaccines, we can find the answers in health research and outcomes that can say wether vaccines are useful or not. This is a data driven question and has a relatively easy answer. 

However on question of society and morality and values and religion... Who decides what is acceptable?

[ErosWired]

7 minutes ago, brnbk said:

However on question of society and morality and values and religion... Who decides what is acceptable?

It depends on the society, but in general, the preponderance of the people living in it at the time. That is why many laws have as their test whether they would meet the standards of a reasonable person in the contemporary context. Someone always does decide, because these questions must be settled in order for society to function when there are two contradictory standards. One standard held by some may say that sex with boys under age 16 is fine and good. Another standard says the opposite. Both cannot be accepted, because it would lead to irreconcilable conflict, and potentially violence. Therefore, societies choose, in the main, the latter. Who makes this choice? In the end, the majority of the people who have to live under the rule of behavior.

This is true of all values at the societal level. Individuals may have different views of value and morality, but the individual’s beliefs do not necessarily trump those of the society in which he is a member. Americans in particular are overfond of the notion that the individual is paramount, and that the rights and choices of an individual must always prevail. But this is not only not so, it cannot be so; there are currently over 330 million individuals, many of whom want the exact same thing at the same time, for themselves, and it is not possible. We concede our individual priority in all manner of things, every day.

I am not saying that a man may not stand on the street and claim to be Jesus, nor that a man may not decry the fact that he is not permitted to bugger six-year-old boys. What I am saying is that his freedom is to choose what he will say - but that his choice may not be accepted when he says it. It is incumbent upon him to use his knowledge, wisdom and discretion in the exercise of his freedom within the proper context for the place, time, and society in which he lives. If he fails to do so, then he may experience adverse consequences, not because he spoke, but because what he chose to express causes his fellows to find it necessary to prevent him from taking an action he seems likely to take, in order to protect him from being a danger to himself or others. The society, once it has determined that paedophilia is unacceptable, cannot afford to sit idly by when a man speaks of his desire to act on it; if they wait until he has actually acted, it will be too late to safeguard their interest.

The man who believes himself Christ Reborn is very likely alone in that opinion, and thus in the view of most everyone around him, suffering from a malady affecting his mind. A developed society should not leave its members who are ill and in need of help to wander the streets, but should take action to see to their care. Indeed, it might properly be argued that this man is not even exercising a free speech right at all, if the speech coming from his mouth is being generated by a mind unable to make sound choices about what to say. If he were instead speaking gibberish, would we simply say, “It is his right to stand there and speak so”? No. We would take him away to the hospital.

[Guest]

The point I was making is who cares what they say, yes there are laws on the books and there are locations where one can stand when speaking in public. etc. Not disagreeing with you there. Just the fact that is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment that he has the right to speak whatever is on their mind in public. Maybe one day it will be the claim of being Jesus, to the next day talking about pedophilia. Yes, it's tasteless and disgusting and doesn't fit current societal beliefs but the right is there for them to say it.

If you invited me to your home and I started talking about the most disgusting things, you have the right to kick me out. However, if I stand on the corner of the entrance, there's nothing that can be done legally. Personally, I'd never disrespect a host or a guest.

 

You should check out some of the dumb laws that are still on the books from around the states.

Here's on for ya. It's a South Carolina law. remember reading one years ago where the law stated that It's legal for a husband to beat his wife, but only on Sundays on the Court House steps.

Edited January 29 by WillingRawVerse

[descartes70817]

As I recently found out the Tor Browser hasn't been censored (yet). I'm sitting here in a censorship state typing this message via a Tor Browser while I have BB porn in a different tab. I'm using a MacBook Air so I can't comment on how it works in Windows.