Elon Musk's response to Sydney stabbing footage prompts fury,

It's literally setting up itself as the ministry of Truth.

I don't know about you but I've seen some government statements that prove to me these are some of the most boneheaded people that ever lived so they're not capable of deciding what's true.

Really want a government says they want to protect you from misinformation it means they want to lie to you. But you know that.

The most deadly phrase you can ever hear in the Free world is we are from the government and we're here to help.

 

Yeah and we don't have a ministers and government officials dictating what is or isn't misinformation.

The second they do that you cannot trust anything they say.

 

Sexual exploitation of children is not free speech.

 

While the general population only seeks to bathe in its ignorance and superficial emotions, the objectivity to process information will continue to be lacking and the inherent dangers will persist. The only "law" that would help would be one that required rational thought in individuals.

 

One of the actions of the knife attacker was to stab a baby in its pram. - you want THAT spread over the internet? Keeping in mind that some serial killers used stabbing as a substitute for sexual penetration

 

in part, YES

 

Enjoy your ministry of Truth, you guys earned it and you deserve it

 

Yes on porn and no on pedophilia. We can also post people being killed if it arises. There is no law against it. But Australia has zero free speech as far as I’m concerned.

 

No problems then I will let you keep your misconceptions especially since the law was simply to have the social media organisations enforce a code of conduct. You know like THIS board has

 

Thanks! Now I KNOW I made my point!

 

Making a law to enforce a code of conduct is still stoping freedom of speech. What’s the difference if you make it punishable at the company level if they don’t take it down?

 

And you call slander and framing innocent people of crimes they did commit as "free speech"… who would have guessed.

Can you define free speech for us?

 

Part of free speech includes the ability to lie. The main topic however was a video that they wanted taken down that was a graphic video of the stabbing, not a false one.

the part you’re referring to is distinguished as a separate story with that section starting of as “separately”. So don’t mix the two circumstances up. I fully support free speech unlike liberals, even if it hurts your feelers or may be false. I have enough faith in a society where most can read to find truth and lies on their own.

 

It was the Russo-Islamic smear campaign which was designed to frame an innocent person guilty of crimes he had nothing to do with.

You think slander and inciting violence is 'free speech', and most people, liberal, conservative or libertarian would disagree. Your rights end when they infringe the rights of others, which is the same here. Its common sense.

 

No, the video musk had an issue with taking down was just a video that was very much factual, it was just considered graphic. Post the part that claims the video musk wanted taken down was false if you believe that.

 

I believe that slander is part of life. If you try and outlaw any form of speech you are stopping conversation which only leads to more anger. I have faith in my fellow citizens to manage their own speech how they see fit. I also believe that if someone lies why would I ever be scared of a conversation that I can prove wrong.

 

See Post #15

See post #89.

When your speech puts others in danger, then there is a problem. There is a reason why treason is considered a serious crime, - and treason is what you would defend as "free speech". Treason, slander, fraud, threats etc is all just "free speech" so someone like you.

 

Nah, we have so many "sources" right now, that people only use their selected resources because they crave confirmation bias. In many cases it takes a lot of digging to get to the truth, BECAUSE so many sources out there ARE biased.

We need a new fairness doctrine to level the field of truth. We can still have our Fox News' of the world, but they can be fact checked by these fact checkers via a fairness doctrine. I know all the righties will jump in here, but anyone who is honest in any debate knows that the sources most people get their information from, they do it for confirmation bias. This is more on us as consumers, but lets be clear here, the dominant sources today, are purely profit driven. Look at the last election, FOX was lying every day, their talking heads were telling you they were lying, and most of you still lapped it up and claimed it truth. Hell we STILL have "news sources" claiming the election was stolen. Fox News talking heads TOLD you they lied to you, and their ratings went up. They paid a $BILLION $$$ fine, and their rating went UP. Thats not a problem at FOX, thats a problem with the american electorate.

When we had an FCC, they tried in some way to control truth, but the profit motive, and Fox News changed the landscape of information. Now the only thing that matters is $$$, and the truth has no place in profit, because we all know that confirmation bias (true or not) is much more lucrative.

 

This was all over a picture… NOT the video Mr Musk was forced to take down. Read the thing again please.

 

Treason is an action beyond speech… wow… are liberals really equating speech to treason now?

 

I have no idea what liberals are doing, or saying. Treason/slander/threats etc is something YOU defend under your twisted understanding of free speech, because its all just an exchange of words, or conversation.

 

Where did I claim threats is protected speech? Is this more magic tricks of reading things that are not there?

Treason is defined in the constitution, speech is not part of it. And slander yes, I could care less

 

I said it to highlight the problem in your view, and others who argue free speech is absolute (limitless)

So, its not ok to exchange words (speech) if it amounts to treason, but its ok to use speech to put others in danger, threaten them, or rob them of their property? I still think you have a twisted idea of free speech.

 

Treason is defined in the constitution and speech is not the definition.

 

And this is some of the issue - Social media companies cannot even be held to that standard as they can claim “we didn’t do it” as members are doing the posting. What the Aus govt wants is for the owners to have a code of conduct and enforce it.