Elon Musk Ends Twitter Takeover Attempt

koobookie wrote: Can I interpret your statement to say that I'm a bad guy because I don't want pedophiles given a voice on social media? What about skinheads? Should they be able to post their hate speech on twitter? What about the proud boys? What are the limits of free speech?

How about a different question - should Alex Jones be able to spew his hateful rhetoric over the airwaves?

Ever hear of NAMBLA?

The first amendment is not there to protect speech you like, it's there to protect speech you don't like.

Free speech is fine, even if someone is hurt. Is that what you are saying?

As Alex Jones has discovered, defamation is a consequence of opening your mouth to hurt other people. He has learned that there is a price to pay for knowingly lying and defaming others in public. So yes, there are limits to free speech.

Should Elon Musk, new owner of twitter, be held responsible for his promotion of an outrageous conspiracy behind the attack on Paul Pelosi, an unproven allegation? Is that what free speech is all about? Promoting baseless accusations - no, not even accusations, more like unproven rumors about the spouse of a public figure? Is that what our country has become?

Canada will put a muzzle on the press in some court cases to guarantee a impartial jury. Would you like the Federal and Colorado state government to be able to do that too?

Do you like the idea of President Trump's DOJ deciding what the press can report on?

Pre-Musk Twitter gave a platform for antisemitic Iranian leaders. Should their accounts had been locked instead?

Mary Scott wrote:

koobookie wrote: Can I interpret your statement to say that I'm a bad guy because I don't want pedophiles given a voice on social media? What about skinheads? Should they be able to post their hate speech on twitter? What about the proud boys? What are the limits of free speech?

How about a different question - should Alex Jones be able to spew his hateful rhetoric over the airwaves?

Ever hear of NAMBLA?

The first amendment is not there to protect speech you like, it's there to protect speech you don't like.

[/b]

I'm sure if your family was Jewish and YOUR lineage was interrupted by the holocaust, and it was declared a FAKE event...u might have a different pov. THAT'S WHAT Alex Jones DID and he was slammed for it....boo hoo, he is sorry now,what a crock.

koobookie wrote: Free speech is fine, even if someone is hurt. Is that what you are saying?

There are 331.9 million people in the U.S. in 2021 ( www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=us+...ra&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 ), do you think that everything you say would be acceptable to all, or not hurt any of them?

Try answering HomeAgain's question in the post directly above yours.

koobookie wrote: Try answering HomeAgain's question in the post directly above yours.

I'll take that as a "No".

Mary Scott wrote:

koobookie wrote: Free speech is fine, even if someone is hurt. Is that what you are saying?

There are 331.9 million people in the U.S. in 2021 ( www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=us+...ra&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 ), do you think that everything you say would be acceptable to all, or not hurt any of them?

THERE is something truly warped (my POV) by this post. WHEN U DENY ANOTHER'S AGONY,ANGUISH AND THE REALITY OF AN UNWARRANTED DEATH and u continue to state it was a farce,u (collectively)
become a monster (inhuman)......man's inhumanity to man KNOWS NO BOUNDS......we r devolving into
a cesspool of cruelty.

PS....let's bring this closer to YOUR HEART.....what if YOUR CHILD were murdered in a mass murder and a declaration was broadcast that it NEVER HAPPENED and it was fake news.....I can NOT believe u
would still have the same point of view....(or maybe u COULD just brush it aside as freedom of speech....what an extraordinary example of apathy)