Brazil's President restricts which posts social networks can remove

[winjer]

Right now, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, can delete anything that they don't like, whether justified or not, without consequences.
With this in place, those same social media platforms, will have to actually justify the reason for their deletion, or they have to restore the content. Let me simply quote the whole from Twitter....

Even IF that is the agenda, which I don't think it is, why shouldn't he get to speak? And I don't even like Bolsonaro. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about...? Not being able to censor the ones that you don't like...?

It's not as if this change is exclusively for the government. This will apply to every Brazilian citizen. They cannot be censored without support of the Brazilian law through a judge.

I can understand the concern, that this might be something that is being framed in a good way, but that it can be used to legalize censorship of certain things through a judge. Although this is a possibility, censorship with lawful justification is better than free censorship without any justification. And make no mistake, what is happening now, on a global scale through social media, is the latter.

The platforms are private companies. They are not governmental institutions.
There for, the are not required to be politically agnostic. Private individuals and companies are allowed to have their political views.
This is the reason why CNN can choose to have a left wing bias, and FOX to have a right wing bias. The same for journals, TVs, etc.
If I make a site I can choose what I publish, because I'm in a free country.
If I make a social platform, I can choose my rules, because I'm in a free country.
And so can you, or anyone else.

No one is censoring Bolsonaro, no one is forbidding him to speak his mind.
But these platforms choose not to publish his propaganda. That is all.

No government in a free country, can mandate what a publication can or cannot, should or should not publish.

What Bolsonaro is trying to do is to coarse free, private platforms to publish his ideas and propaganda. Just like a dictator.

 

[NightAntilli]

How should we 'read correctly'?

President orders by decree that Facebook has to host things it does not want on its platform. How could this possibly be construed as anything but a terrible thing?

The platforms are private companies. They are not governmental institutions.
There for, the are not required to be politically agnostic. Private individuals and companies are allowed to have their political views.
This is the reason why CNN can choose to have a left wing bias, and FOX to have a right wing bias. The same for journals, TVs, etc.
If I make a site I can choose what I publish, because I'm in a free country.
If I make a social platform, I can choose my rules, because I'm in a free country.
And so can you, or anyone else.

No one is censoring Bolsonaro, no one is forbidding him to speak his mind.
But these platforms choose not to publish his propaganda. That is all.

No government in a free country, can mandate what a publication can or cannot, should or should not publish.

What Bolsonaro is trying to do is to coarse free, private platforms to publish his ideas and propaganda. Just like a dictator.

I understand your point, but, it's not that simple. You have to have the presumption that Facebook is neutral, and Bolsonaro is evil, to see this as a bad thing. And, Beerfloat, you phrased it a bit conveniently... You can say the same thing, by stating;
President orders by decree that Facebook is not allowed to delete things from their platform that can be classified as Freedom of speech under the constitution and does not break any governmental law.

Facebook is a global platform, and as a global platform, they have their partners, and the ones that fund them. What if the ones that fund them start pushing an agenda? Is that simply allowed because it is a private entity...?

So... Let's give a few examples...

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allow posts that say that Biden is evil, and Trump is great. Anything that might suggest that Biden did something good, is deleted, and you get a warning or are even banned. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allows posts that say men are good, and women are evil. Anything that might suggest that women are even useful, is deleted. Repetitive posts results in getting banned. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allow posts by white people, based on their profile picture, and they don't want to host any pictures of African or Asian people. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allows posts saying that pedophilia is a gender preference, and any post suggesting that it might be child abuse, is censored, and you get banned from the platform. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now not only allow posts that pedophilia is a gender preference, but is actually partnered with pedophile organizations that actively 'fact check' everything that is posted, and advertise that everyone must become a pedophile.

I am sorry for the extreme example, but it's there to make a point. At what point is the right of the private entity allowed to overwrite the right of the individual, I.e. the constitution...?

I don't think this can be compared to the likes of TV. TV is a one-way street. They either broadcast something or they don't. They can't stop you from eating popcorn while you're watching, for example. But on social media, it's different. They are now stopping people from sharing their genuine thoughts, and that is a problem.

The whole point of social media is to be social. What is being social? Sharing information and ideas. But if specific information is not allowed to be talked about, like, mentioning Ivermectin on YouTube gets you a strike or even banned immediately, on an interactive platform, that is a problem. How is that not a dictatorship???

 

[winjer]

I understand your point, but, it's not that simple. You have to have the presumption that Facebook is neutral, and Bolsonaro is evil, to see this as a bad thing. And, Beerfloat, you phrased it a bit conveniently... You can say the same thing, by stating;
President orders by decree that Facebook is not allowed to delete things from their platform that can be classified as Freedom of speech under the constitution and does not break any governmental law.

Facebook is a global platform, and as a global platform, they have their partners, and the ones that fund them. What if the ones that fund them start pushing an agenda? Is that simply allowed because it is a private entity...?

So... Let's give a few examples...

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allow posts that say that Biden is evil, and Trump is great. Anything that might suggest that Biden did something good, is deleted, and you get a warning or are even banned. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allows posts that say men are good, and women are evil. Anything that might suggest that women are even useful, is deleted. Repetitive posts results in getting banned. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allow posts by white people, based on their profile picture, and they don't want to host any pictures of African or Asian people. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now only allows posts saying that pedophilia is a gender preference, and any post suggesting that it might be child abuse, is censored, and you get banned from the platform. Is that ok?

Imagine Facebook decides to now not only allow posts that pedophilia is a gender preference, but is actually partnered with pedophile organizations that actively 'fact check' everything that is posted, and advertise that everyone must become a pedophile.

I am sorry for the extreme example, but it's there to make a point. At what point is the right of the private entity allowed to overwrite the right of the individual, I.e. the constitution...?

I don't think this can be compared to the likes of TV. TV is a one-way street. They either broadcast something or they don't. They can't stop you from eating popcorn while you're watching, for example. But on social media, it's different. They are now stopping people from sharing their genuine thoughts, and that is a problem.

The whole point of social media is to be social. What is being social? Sharing information and ideas. But if specific information is not allowed to be talked about, like, mentioning Ivermectin on YouTube gets you a strike or even banned immediately, on an interactive platform, that is a problem. How is that not a dictatorship???

Doesn't matter if you or I agree with Biden, Trump, Bolsonaro, Chavez, or any politician. In a free country, each private individual or company can choose what they publish. Biden can't force FOX to publish good things about him and the Democratic party.
And Bolsonaro can't force Facebook, Twitter, or any company to publish his ideals.
These social media companies have no obligation to publish any political view. They never had any obligation. And neither did journals or TVs.
Only public institutions have the obligation to be unbiased.

Freedom of speech means that people can choose to publish what they want. And if the people who own these companies want to not publish some politician propaganda it's their choice.

Committing a crime, is not ruled as free speech. So that argument about pedophilia is pointless. And detrimental for the conversation.

 

[Beerfloat]

The hypotheticals are really not relevant.

Democracies/Republics have a process in place for all of this. It goes roughly like this:
1) Persuade voters to win a representative majority in congress/parliament/legislature of your country/state/province/town.
2) Propose new law or change existing one. Find a majority in legislature for your change.
3) If law is unconstitutional, propose new amendment or change in constitution. Find a supermajority in legislature for your change to constitution.
4) If succesful, inform Facebook of new laws and set schedule for compliance.

I have no sympathy for Facebook whatsoever. I think social media is a plague.

That has no bearing on the fact that we do not and should not do major policy changes by executive decree.

 

[NightAntilli]

Doesn't matter if you or I agree with Biden, Trump, Bolsonaro, Chavez, or any politician. In a free country, each private individual or company can choose what they publish. Biden can't force FOX to publish good things about him and the Democratic party.
And Bolsonaro can't force Facebook, Twitter, or any company to publish his ideals.
These social media companies have no obligation to publish any political view. They never had any obligation. And neither did journals or TVs.
Only public institutions have the obligation to be unbiased.

That is true, and I understand that. But please try and entertain the other perspective for one second. Just because you are private, doesn't mean you can infringe on basic human rights. Can we agree on that?

Freedom of speech means that people can choose to publish what they want. And if the people who own these companies want to not publish some politician propaganda it's their choice.

Are you aware that you are directly implying that the users on their platform therefore cannot have the right to freedom of speech? Because freedom of speech means that people can choose to publish what they want. And people cannot do that on the platform if they are banned, simply for saying the wrong word.

And you ignored my most important question of my previous post;
At what point are the rights of the private entity allowed to overwrite the rights of the individual (I.e. the constitution)...?

Committing a crime, is not ruled as free speech. So that argument about pedophilia is pointless. And detrimental for the conversation.

Obviously, pedophilia is a crime in the majority of places, and platforms are liable for promoting it. I mentioned that the example was extreme, with a purpose. It was a hypothetical scenario, assuming that pedophilia is not a crime in that case, to show how far things can go, if a private entity is allowed to dictate all the terms of publishing on their platform. Crime is determined by the government after all. Remember, that everything that Hitler did, was legal.

Question, which I expect an answer to;
Why is it not ok for Bolsonaro to force things on the platform, but ok for the WHO to do it, for example...? Because what social media platforms are doing at this point in time is claiming a monopoly on information.

The hypotheticals are really not relevant.

They are. You just haven't realized it yet. In hindsight, everyone can see that promoting Nazism is bad. But what about in the moment...?

Let's put it this way. If Bolsonaro was the owner of Facebook, and the WHO was his military, looking at purely the actions of Facebook today, ignoring all the noise, could you say that Facebook as it operates right now is not a dictatorship?

 

[Avro Arrow]

From what I can tell (in the linked Wikipedia article from my last post), deaths by homicide in Brazil doubled with an increase in gun control and reduced gun ownership. But I don't study Brazil's society so I'm not claiming it's a direct result of that. I agree with you that improving police forces in Brazil would have the best impact on crime. Meanwhile in other countries (such as Australia), it seems that gun control have a very small effect on homicides: https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/

And then there are countries like Canada whose gun laws do seem to have an impact on the homicide rate. It doesn't reduce crime, it just makes it more difficult to kill. If you're not allowed to walk around in Canada with a pistol on you, you literally cannot make the (bad) snap decision to kill someone so easily.

In Canada, our gun laws primarily restrict handguns like pistols and revolvers. Long guns like rifles and shotguns are only restricted in the way that you have to have no criminal record and take a course in firearm safety to get a licence to own a gun. There are three types of licence in Canada known as "unrestricted", "restricted" and "prohibited".

An unrestricted licence means that you have the right to own a firearm that fits the unrestricted category (long guns) which most Canadians use to own something like a Lakefield .22LR semi-automatic or bolt-action for plinking.

A restricted licence means that you have the right to own all firearms listed as unrestricted along with pistols and revolvers. You must prove that you have a real need to carry one of these firearms which usually means for your job. Therefore, most owners of restricted licences are police constables, high-end security guards, private investigators and military personnel.

A prohibited licence is generally only granted to individuals who already own firearms that became prohibited after they already owned them legally. It's kind of like a grandfather clause for eligibility but you must clear several background checks that are so stringent that they would otherwise be considered to be against our privacy laws. If consent is not given, the licence will not be granted and the firearm in question will be seized and destroyed. You can read more about Canadian gun licences here on the Mounties' website:

Classes of firearms | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Neither the Canadian people nor the Canadian government believe the lie that handguns are for self-defence like so many Americans seem to. If I wanted to kill someone, I wouldn't walk up to them with a pistol and shoot them, I'd use a rifle and scope to snipe them from a rooftop or some other elevated position. Whether or not they were packing heat at the time would be irrelevant because they'd be dead. Handguns are incredibly dangerous and their only advantage over rifles is portability. Kinda like comparing a craptop to a PC.

In Nazi Germany, gun ownership was extremely restricted before Hitler came into power so the reduction of gun control meant very little considering it was still restrictive years after Hitler was in power. Here's more information on that; in it gun control advocates do not believe gun regulation had any effect on the Nazi party's power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

Yeah and it didn't matter even then because pretty much all who were against the Nazis in Germany at the time were either "liquidated" or fled the country. The Nazis tried their gun control in Vichy France but it didn't work because the allies were supplying La Résistance with all the hardware they could ever need.

 

[Red34jfp]

The specifics of the implementation in any particular country does not fundamentally alter the separation of government into legislative, executive and judiciary branches.

Also, Facebook can certainly establish whatever it wants for its own platform, and customers are free to decide whether to sign up for it.

The court of justice can come in when a government (or any other party) potentially steps on Facebook's rights, and make a judgement whether that is so.

The specific implementation does alter the balance of the separation of powers, e.g. the system used to nominate the judges of the Supreme Court in the US gives to that high court a more accentuated ideological split compared to other systems where the nomination is split between different bodies; but any rate what I meant with "when appropriate" was "when it's in accordance with the law", not that they should outright make laws.

On Facebook and social media in general, I think it's appropriate for governments and parliaments to regulate them and treat them like a private company offering a public service, because it's what they do, they offer a service open to everyone that can't be easily replaced, if at all.

That has no bearing on the fact that we do not and should not do major policy changes by executive decree.

Asking just in case, are you aware that the Brazialian parliament has to approve this decree in 60 days otherwise it will decay? The legislative decree is commonly used (and often abused) in the systems inspired more or less directly by the French one.

 

[Avro Arrow]

The platforms are private companies. They are not governmental institutions.
There for, the are not required to be politically agnostic. Private individuals and companies are allowed to have their political views.
This is the reason why CNN can choose to have a left wing bias, and FOX to have a right wing bias. The same for journals, TVs, etc.

Well, heh, it also depends on which Overton Window you're using. For most NATO countries, CNN isn't considered to be left-leaning any more than the Democrats are considered to be left-leaning. They're just not nearly as right-leaning as Fox/NM/OAN.

The BBC, CBC, France 24 and Neues Deutschland are real left-leaning news agencies that make CNN look like Fox. To the best of my knowledge, unless you're including independent news like TYT, I'm not aware of any truly left-wing news outlets in the USA.

Remember, if a news network is willing to smear Bernie Sanders, they're not left-wing.

 

[Beerfloat]

Asking just in case, are you aware that the Brazialian parliament has to approve this decree in 60 days otherwise it will decay? The legislative decree is commonly used (and often abused) in the systems inspired more or less directly by the French one.

Yes, and it must not be allowed to remain into effect for that time.
As I said earlier, a stay of the order should be issued urgently.

 

[winjer]

That is true, and I understand that. But please try and entertain the other perspective for one second. Just because you are private, doesn't mean you can infringe on basic human rights. Can we agree on that?

To choose not to publish some ones political ideology is not an infringement on human rights. Plenty of politicians, especially from minor parties, are left out of journals, TVs, social media, etc.
No one has to publish some one else's ideology. Be it a private citizen, or a private company.

Are you aware that you are directly implying that the users on their platform therefore cannot have the right to freedom of speech? Because freedom of speech means that people can choose to publish what they want. And people cannot do that on the platform if they are banned, simply for saying the wrong word.

The users of those platform have their rights secured. No one is forbidding their speech.
The only thing that happens is that a private company can choose not to be the vessel of certain ideologies. Fox and Breibart choose not to be a vessel for the Dems.
Besides, if there is a demand, the market will follow. If there is a need to exist a social media company with another ideology, someone can make it.
That's what Trump did. Or tried to do.

And you ignored my most important question of my previous post;
At what point are the rights of the private entity allowed to overwrite the rights of the individual (I.e. the constitution)...?

You have the right to have your ideology, same as me. But I don't have to be a vessel to export your ideas. Nor any company I might own. And ice-versa.
Bolsonaro, has the right to his ideology. But he cannot force other people to spread his ideas. And that includes companies, that are run by people, who also have their ideas.
Facebook, Twitter have their ideology, because they are run by people, that have ideas. And these people cannot be forced to be a vessel to spread ideas they don't want to.

Obviously, pedophilia is a crime in the majority of places, and platforms are liable for promoting it. I mentioned that the example was extreme, with a purpose. It was a hypothetical scenario, assuming that pedophilia is not a crime in that case, to show how far things can go, if a private entity is allowed to dictate all the terms of publishing on their platform. Crime is determined by the government after all. Remember, that everything that Hitler did, was legal.

Once again, you are distorting things. Hitler did a lot of things that were illegal, even when he was in power. He just had the power to not face justice. For example, he was faced with charges of fiscal fraud, for not paying taxes on his book and other political revenues. This happened while he was already in power. So he just made it go away.

The other thing to consider is the origin of the law. In a free and democratic country, laws reflect the will, moral and ethics of the people. In a dictatorship, laws reflect the will of the dictator.

Question, which I expect an answer to;
Why is it not ok for Bolsonaro to force things on the platform, but ok for the WHO to do it, for example...? Because what social media platforms are doing at this point in time is claiming a monopoly on information.

The WHO forces no one. They publish recommendations on health. Then the countries choose to implement or not those measures.
Social media platforms force no one to use them. Costumers can choose what services they use.
I don't like facebook, so I don't use it.
I do like Techspot, so I use it.
You have the same freedom.

They are. You just haven't realized it yet. In hindsight, everyone can see that promoting Nazism is bad. But what about in the moment...?

That is a non argument. Even before the Nazis committed all of those atrocities, plenty of people were against them. In Germany many were assaulted or killed for criticizing.
Or, as an example, might I remember that Churchill denounced Hitler and Nazi Germany, at the same time that Chamberlain waved his paper saying "Peace for our time".

Let's put it this way. If Bolsonaro was the owner of Facebook, and the WHO was his military, looking at purely the actions of Facebook today, ignoring all the noise, could you say that Facebook as it operates right now is not a dictatorship?

This is pure nonsense. Even for an analogy.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

That site your are quoting on Australia is from a far right organization with pro gun agendas. So it's not a reliable source.
The real numbers show a slight decrease in homicides per year, but on an increasing population. Meaning that homicides per capita, have decreased at a steady rate.
Also consider that guns in Australia were not abolished, just restricted. So there are still a decent amount of guns, for those wanting to do harm.

Brasil has a large amount of guns, even without legalizing more of them. This is the main reason for it's high homicide rate. For a country to reduce it's crime rate, the solution was never to give more guns to the people, but to improve policing and social policies.

On the other hand I can give you an opposite example. Portugal, a smaller country, but with a very similar population and with strong emigration between Brasil. It has a rather restricted gun control policy. But unlike Brasil, it is one of the safest countries in the world. In fact, it ranks number 2, at the moment.
Even Brazilians claim that one of the reasons to emigrate to Portugal is the safety.

The rise of nazi Germany had many facets. But on of it's most pernicious facets was that of allowing more guns into the hands of nazi sympathizers, while removing guns from those that were considered enemies.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews

Portugal was also a para-fascist country for 40 years lol, and definitely a dictatorship. It’s still one of the poorest countries in Europe… Almost all of my family left from there. It's had a negative growth rate for 10 years straight according to the UN.

It’s interesting that you’ll refuse to visit certain sites, claim they’re biased, and not even look at the underlying data. The article's sources are the University of Minnesota, Washington Post, Huffington Post, and government data. The site I quoted literally agreed with everything you pointed out, but further compared homicide rates to other western countries. It shows that everywhere homicides decreased from the 90s, but in Australia it's barely gone down. Australia's population growth has little to do with the situation because the numbers being compared are homicides per capita.

I agree that Nazi Germany maintained gun regulation depending on who they wanted to control, and that’s exactly why the US has the second amendment—in a theoretical situation where the government becomes tyrannical, the populace can fight back. Gun ownership is how the US representative democracy formed in the first place (obviously they're needed to win the war), allowing society to continually improve for centuries afterward.

 

[NightAntilli]

The WHO forces no one. They publish recommendations on health. Then the countries choose to implement or not those measures.

You sure have an idealistic view of the world.

This is pure nonsense. Even for an analogy.

It was a question, which you deliberately avoid to answer. But I guess since you don't use Facebook, you don't actually know how things are going there.

There is no use in continuing this 'conversation', because only one of us is actually listening and entertaining the perspective of the other.

 

[winjer]

Portugal was also a para-fascist country for 40 years lol, and definitely a dictatorship. It’s still one of the poorest countries in Europe… Almost all of my family left from there. It's had a negative growth rate for 10 years straight according to the UN.

Yes, Portugal had a fascist dictatorship. One that also passed legislation to control guns. But after the revolution of the 25 of April 74, the democratic governments also passed strong legislation to curb the proliferation of illegal guns in the country. And they keep passing more and more legislation to reduce guns in civilian hands.
Despite Portugal being a very poor country, it is still one of the most peaceful in the world. This is might just be a nice result of having gun control.

It’s interesting that you’ll refuse to visit certain sites, claim they’re biased, and not even look at the underlying data. The article's sources are the University of Minnesota, Washington Post, Huffington Post, and government data. The site I quoted literally agreed with everything you pointed out, but further compared homicide rates to other western countries. It shows that everywhere homicides decreased from the 90s, but in Australia it's barely gone down. Australia's population growth has little to do with the situation because the numbers being compared are homicides per capita.

The problem is not the data, but the conclusion. That is the part that is biased on that site.
Notice that most modern countries have a population growth that is stagnant or decreasing. But Australia keeps on growing at a steady rate, for the last few years. Meaning that homicides per capita are decreasing.

I agree that Nazi Germany maintained gun regulation depending on who they wanted to control, and that’s exactly why the US has the second amendment—in a theoretical situation where the government becomes tyrannical, the populace can fight back. Gun ownership is how the US representative democracy formed in the first place (obviously they're needed to win the war), allowing society to continually improve for centuries afterward.

If a government becomes tyrannical, even if a population has guns, they don't stand a chance against a professional army.
And that is what happened in the Warsaw uprising in 1944. And it failed miserably, because an army has much better guns, equipment and training.

You sure have an idealistic view of the world.

The UN can't even uphold the peace with their army, in conflict areas, with international approval. But somehow you think that the WHO, can force all countries to comply with some health and safety measures.
This is why you need to get out of Facebook. It's clotting your brain with conspiracy theories.

 

[Beerfloat]

Because freedom of speech means that people can choose to publish what they want. And people cannot do that on the platform if they are banned, simply for saying the wrong word.

Freedom of speech in no way means that anyone is obliged to help someone spread their speech.
You really ought to stop putting such a fundamental misunderstanding on display.

Freedom of speech means one thing and one thing only: Government may not punish expression, with very narrow exceptions legally excluded.

Bolsonaro's move actually extends punishment to include new exceptions.

And you ignored my most important question of my previous post;
At what point are the rights of the private entity allowed to overwrite the rights of the individual (I.e. the constitution)...?

They do not. That is not at all what is at stake.

Remember, that everything that Hitler did, was legal.

Not even remotely true.

Question, which I expect an answer to;
Why is it not ok for Bolsonaro to force things on the platform, but ok for the WHO to do it, for example...? Because what social media platforms are doing at this point in time is claiming a monopoly on information.

What?

They are. You just haven't realized it yet.

Not only are they irrelevant, they are getting more out there and wrong as we go along.

I honestly don't see much value in invoking Nazis or pedophiles (or the mystifying WHO-tangent) in most discussions, and this one is certainly no exception.

 

[Jack Deth]

Bottom line: social media has too much power and is stunting the already rapidly declining critical thinking skills of the people. And they are in bed with Big Government.

 

[captaincranky]

Even IF that is the agenda, which I don't think it is, why shouldn't he get to speak? And I don't even like Bolsonaro. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about...? Not being able to censor the ones that you don't like...?

Well, it does guarantee that no one will be able to silence the "prez", even if what he posts is lies, fabrication, or propaganda. I would hate to think what we in the US would have to endure, if Donald Trump were allowed to continue with his complete fabrication of, "the election being stolen from him".Fact is, he didn't win the popular vote for his first and only term.

Also, any government party could use undue coercive methods to silence the opposition. A party in power could simply state openly or covertly, "if you don't remove this party or persons posts, we'll simply pass more restrictive legislation to make certain ,that you do.

We're well on the way to totalitarian control here, whether you choose to believe it or not.

At this point in time, "freedom of speech" in the USA, is descending into a mythology, not that it always hasn't been.

"Free speech", has always has been a dubious right here. , in that you can say whatever you like, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. /There are some places and times where exercising your "right to free speech, could possibly result in your being killed

 

[McMurdeR]

At this point in time, "freedom of speech" in the USA, is descending into a mythology, not that it always hasn't been.

"Free speech", has always has been a dubious right here. , in that you can say whatever you like, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. /There are some places and times where exercising your "right to free speech, could possibly result in your being killed

I can't say whatever I like at work, in your living room or on the internet without the risk of being kicked out!!

The articles of free speech protect the individual from interference from the state. In many parts of the world you won't even get that, so why call out the US?

 

[captaincranky]

The articles of free speech protect the individual from interference from the state. In many parts of the world you won't even get that, so why call out the US?

I'm not calling out the US at all. I'm just posting a reality check that, "the right to free speech", has to be applied with careful thought and common sense beforehand.

I'm just referring to overly broad conceptions of what free speech really entails. It still requires careful thought and good judgment on the part of the person exercising that right. Perhaps not as much though here, as in other countries, as you say..

The people who invaded the Capitol on January 6th, all claimed they were exercising their right to "peaceably assemble" and free speech. Five hundred or so of them have been arrested. Granted, they did go a bit over the top on that

1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. Should you believe that's an absolute, try going to a black lives matter rally, and calling them all a bunch of stupid *******.. As long as you're willing to accept the consequences of your actions, you have the right to say it.(While you're praying to god the police haven't been "defunded").`-The state wouldn't interfere. What with me being on Social Security, that would be one less mouth to feed.

In fact, as a Caucasian male, ****** is a word I'm not even allowed to lip sync..

CODA: So granted that was a bit hyperbolic and snarky.

But in the US, a private corporation can't silence a piece of crap politico altogether. The broadcast networks are obligated to accept political ads, and the USPS is obligated by law, to deliver all political mail. So, nobody's "right to free speech" is being abridged from a ban by a private entity.

 

[Norsiiii]

Sorry, no. Intention is really not relevant here. And agendas are not illegal.

Well, they are now, in Brazil

 

[Norsiiii]

That site your are quoting on Australia is from a far right organization with pro gun agendas. So it's not a reliable source.
The real numbers show a slight decrease in homicides per year, but on an increasing population. Meaning that homicides per capita, have decreased at a steady rate.
Also consider that guns in Australia were not abolished, just restricted. So there are still a decent amount of guns, for those wanting to do harm.

As an Australian who has spent dozens and dozens of hours reading countless studies and papers on the connection between guns and homicide rates in my country, you are quite misinformed.

It is widely held by academia (not but media/popular opinion, but by academia) that there is no observable causal effect on homicide rates directly attributable to the gun law changes introduced in the mid 90's. This is demonstrated principally by 2 glaring facts:

Firstly, the homicide rate per capita in Australia had been on a steady and consistent downward trend since peaking in the 70's. The rate of this decline did not deviate before, during or after the gun law reformed - it continued to steadily and slowly decrease exactly as it was already doing.

Secondly, there are far more guns in Australia today than there ever were at any time prior to the event that sparked the gun law reforms, both legal and illegal. There are not only more guns in number, but more per capita too. The rate of firearm ownership per head of population has increased by 1.7% over that period, and yet the homicide rate has continued to fall.

 

[quadibloc]

Bolsonaro is following the lead of Trump supporters. He wants to be able to mislead people about how serious COVID-19 is.
As for Brazil being a military dictatorship, the fact that people trying to stop fires being set in the Amazon are now in jail, accused of starting the fires themselves, makes clear what is going on. Bolsonaro is not on the right side of history, whether or not he intends to extend his term of office by using the Brazilian military, as some now fear.

 

[quadibloc]

You sure have an idealistic view of the world.

Huh? The World Health Organization may have its faults, like failing to treat Taiwan as the equal of any other country in the world, but it certainly is true that the world is made up of sovereign states, and the United Nations doesn't have much in the way of real authority over them.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Bolsonaro is following the lead of Trump supporters. He wants to be able to mislead people about how serious COVID-19 is.

What is misleading is the fact that people like you want it to be serious. You won't let it die, because it was made political in the beginning. When you brought up Trump's name, you proved that.

 

[Beerfloat]

What is misleading is the fact that people like you want it to be serious. You won't let it die,

What an unfortunate turn of phrase, considering that it is your right wing that makes up the anti-vax, anti-mask crowd so determined to sabotage any possible end to the pandemic.

because it was made political in the beginning. When you brought up Trump's name, you proved that.

It's the people doubling down on stupid that made this political. Bolsonaro among them.

 

[NightAntilli]

Huh? The World Health Organization may have its faults, like failing to treat Taiwan as the equal of any other country in the world, but it certainly is true that the world is made up of sovereign states, and the United Nations doesn't have much in the way of real authority over them.

That's how it is, on paper.
In reality, the world works a bit differently. Money talks.

Ask yourself where they get their funding from, and ask yourself what would happen, if a country that is a member, does not agree with a certain direction.