State of the First Amendment

[Dashinka 24,759]

Every year the First Amendment Center of the Freedom Forum Institute conducts the State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans’ views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans’ changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.

This year’s survey revealed that Americans consider fake news more objectionable than hate speech on social media, though both are opposed by large majorities. The survey showed that 83 percent of respondents agreed that social media companies should remove false information, compared to 72 percent who agreed such companies should remove hate speech.

The good news for First Amendment advocates is that, even with those high levels of concern and desire for action, a majority of Americans do not support the government in having the power to require social media companies to remove objectionable content.

In other good news, three out of four Americans (77%) are supportive of the First Amendment and the freedoms it guarantees. Unfortunately, most Americans are generally unaware of what those freedoms are. More than one-third of the survey respondents (40%) could not name a single freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, and another third of the respondents (36%) were only able to name one. Only one respondent out of the 1,009 people surveyed was able to correctly name all five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Many more respondents (9%) thought that the First Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms (a right that is actually guaranteed by the Second Amendment).

 

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment/

[TBoneTX 46,041]

Interesting, si man...

[Ironclad43 131]

Considering how "private companies" who control 95% of public discourse can outright censor any speech they don't like, I'd say the state of the First Amendment is that which may soon require the Second.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

44 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

Considering how "private companies" who control 95% of public discourse can outright censor any speech they don't like, I'd say the state of the First Amendment is that which may soon require the Second.

What?

The first amendment was only to protect citizens from their government.

 

If you have a problem with free Enterprise not pushing conservative views, why not just make your own to fill in the gaps. 

 

Capitalism at its finest.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Ironclad43 131]

Monopolies cannot be part of capitalism, which is one of the reasons it cannot exist without State power. 

 

Considering payment providers like PayPal (who owns a majority stake in Stripe, the second largest one) will boot you off their payment system for promoting conservative ideas like border security and an end to illegal immigration, simply creating your own media outlet isn't possible, unless you also want to make your own payment processor, which requires a lot of capital and relationships with banks, who are also very hostile to conservatives according to the way they started punishing pro 2A businesses. 

 

Everyone has a right to free speech, as long as it is within the confines of the law. Banning someone you disagree with is unethical when you purport to be a platform that respects all opinions. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 hour ago, Ironclad43 said:

Monopolies cannot be part of capitalism, which is one of the reasons it cannot exist without State power. 

 

Considering payment providers like PayPal (who owns a majority stake in Stripe, the second largest one) will boot you off their payment system for promoting conservative ideas like border security and an end to illegal immigration, simply creating your own media outlet isn't possible, unless you also want to make your own payment processor, which requires a lot of capital and relationships with banks, who are also very hostile to conservatives according to the way they started punishing pro 2A businesses. 

 

Everyone has a right to free speech, as long as it is within the confines of the law. Banning someone you disagree with is unethical when you purport to be a platform that respects all opinions. 

please provide examples of paypal booting customers who support border security and legal immigration. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

And yet, shutting down free speech is getting to be the norm recently.  I'm sure there are examples from both sides, but my personal experience has shown the left shutting down speech from the right more often.

[Ironclad43 131]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

please provide examples of paypal booting customers who support border security and legal immigration. 

Does this mean you agree that banks are punishing pro-2A businesses and and that Social Media is a monopolized public space? 

 

Those were just examples of Conservative ideas, but the fact that websites like Maker Support which are attempting to make a Conservative-friendly version of Patreon are unable to because payment providers are kicking them out (both PayPal and Stripe, separately) without them having done anything illegal tells me enough. 

 

2 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

And yet, shutting down free speech is getting to be the norm recently.  I'm sure there are examples from both sides, but my personal experience has shown the left shutting down speech from the right more often.

Haven't really seen any right wing shutting down of leftist speech, since we don't really control any major websites where political debates are held. I'd be against it though, our ideas can stand on their own merits.

 

 

[yuna628 9,707]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

please provide examples of paypal booting customers who support border security and legal immigration. 

Let's not tell them who owns paypal... and what that person does to people who disagree with their viewpoints. 

 

2 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

What?

The first amendment was only to protect citizens from their government.

 

If you have a problem with free Enterprise not pushing conservative views, why not just make your own to fill in the gaps. 

 

Capitalism at its finest.

I think there is often a fundamental misunderstanding of what the intent of freedom of speech is and also how strange it is that those who purport to love free enterprise and capitalism (wherein there can often be market force consequences to your speech, as people act upon it either positively or negatively with their money as a form of acceptance or protest) don't actually enjoy the concept. What sort of system do they want then? Hmmm..

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

Does this mean you agree that banks are punishing pro-2A businesses and and that Social Media is a monopolized public space? 

 

Those were just examples of Conservative ideas, but the fact that websites like Maker Support which are attempting to make a Conservative-friendly version of Patreon are unable to because payment providers are kicking them out (both PayPal and Stripe, separately) without them having done anything illegal tells me enough. 

 

no, you made a claim - i'd like to see your basis for that claim.

you said "Considering payment providers like PayPal (who owns a majority stake in Stripe, the second largest one) will boot you off their payment system for promoting conservative ideas like border security and an end to illegal immigration,"

i don't believe that is truth. prove me wrong.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Let's not tell them who owns paypal... and what that person does to people who disagree with their viewpoints. 

 

Not sure what you mean here?

 

Founders include Ken Howery, Luke Nosek, Max Levxhin, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, with Dan Schulman as CEO.  Never heard of any of these people doing things to people who disagree with them?

 

 

[yuna628 9,707]

2 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Not sure what you mean here?

 

Founders include Ken Howery, Luke Nosek, Max Levxhin, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, with Dan Schulman as CEO.  Never heard of any of these people doing things to people who disagree with them?

 

 

Never heard a single thing huh? Not even one tiny tidbit ever?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

Never heard a single thing huh? Not even one tiny tidbit ever?

Pretty sure that's what I wrote.  Let me scroll up again...

 

Yep, that's what I wrote.  And you quoted.

 

So what were you trying to say again?

[yuna628 9,707]

12 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Pretty sure that's what I wrote.  Let me scroll up again...

 

Yep, that's what I wrote.  And you quoted.

 

So what were you trying to say again?

Well I just find it odd as it has been a topic of discussion on this very forum before. I found it hard to believe you've never heard about it, but perhaps censorship of only certain individuals matter. No real matter though, freedom of speech on the internet will only get you so far. And often it has little to do with freedom of speech within the Constitution. Platforms can choose to ban whatever content you provide them as they see fit. You reserve the right to not post your content to them or contributing money to them. Just as paypal owners can use their vast amount of money and resources to censor entities (including websites, posters to those websites, and publications with viewpoints) that they are butthurt about. Free enterprise, even when it's underhanded or having alternative motives, still manages to work.

 

Articles that conflate 'speech' on company forums or social media platforms with the 1st amendment certainly muddy the waters. If I had a nickel for every time I or website owners got death threats from some idiot I had to ban because I was 'disrespecting their 1st rights', we'd all be rich. The government shouldn't be in the business of compelling a company to remove content, however the company itself should be adhering to their own policy before they end up looking like hypocrites (as many social media platforms have been these days).

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

When you made your statement, I was thinking more along the lines of people who oppose the Clintons "committing suicide".   Not the ongoing topic of PayPal blocking people based on their political leaning.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.