On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>>>
>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>
>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>
>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>
>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>
> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
> freedoms.

Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?