Roman Snow
H.I.M.
Got it. Yes. That can be a problem, but doesn't seem to be happening here like that. Yet. Unintended consequences. Not a huge fan of social media, (other than ROD
) as there is a giving up of privacy I do not desire.

That's why people leave their weak, inferior countries to immigrate to America. Don't try to bring your shackles here. We are free men.Europe doesn't have a Bill of Rights and a constitution like we do. This is why it is so precious and can never be watered down or changed. Freedom of speech even hateful speech is the bedrock of a free society.
My British cousin was here visiting in April and just about freaked out when two guys came into a cafe where we were eating breakfast....both with guns on their belts. Open carry, not cops. He couldn't believe it.Hey @ flv - do only certain police carry guns in England/Great Britian?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. SeeU.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words,commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.
The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.
It reminds of a person posting away of Facebook about work....how dumb the management is, how lame the company is, how they are using their sick time for vacation ect.Which, of course, doesn't apply to European governments - nor to private businesses like EVERY social media site.
The First Amendment purely applies to the US Federal Government and lesser governments within the US. How does it apply to what the EU is doing or what private businesses are doing? Ironically, trying to restrict what private businesses do in terms of communication by government action is itself a violation of the First Amendment.
Ok.
Guess I just don't understand that. It is like someone insulting where I grew up. I had no say in it, why would I care?
This is where you are fuzzing the line.
"Hate speech"....again, I guess this left to be defined by the people hearing it??....There is a big difference between someone spewing an opinion or point of view that someone may find offensive or bigoted and someone telling someone to kill other people. There are laws against that sort of thing. There should not be laws against someone having bigoted or stupid opinions....I know that this is not the government, at least not yet. There are plenty of places where it is against the law to say things that other might find offensive. The problem with all of this non sense is how it is defined....it is like the old arguments with indecency laws. The limiting of free speech, not because of violence or murder, but because of something as lame as feelings, is where all of this is headed in my opinion.
The truth is, it can not really be defined. It does not matter if a specific opinion is a benefit to society or not....it is the free speech that is beneficial to society.
It is a slippery slope.
They have the right to their opinion. Depends what you mean by demean I guess.
Like the bozos who protest the veterans funerals. Do they have a right to be this vile and offensive? Yes, absolutely. Is that a giant pain in the butt and irritating as all get out? Yes.
A place like a college (correct me if I am wrong) where this happened is going to have a process for people to make speeches, protest or whatever. The demeaning is left up to the people who are involved I guess.
Someone being told they are going to hell.....well, that may greatly upset some people and make others laugh.
It is human nature and cannot be prevented. Sometimes in the macro, sometimes in the micro. Social media is a big unruly monster for sure. Maybe this is an honest attempt to corral some of the wild west of social media....to stop terrorist organizations from recruiting kids....from people encouraging violence ect.
Ok. Thats fine if that is where it is coming from.
The other shortcoming I see with this is it may eliminate some of the more hamfisted troublemakers but, for the more intelligent ones....the language may change a little, but, the message will not.
Decency, compassion, caring, empathy....hatred, bigotry, ignorance....these things cannot be regulated out of the human heart, be it by private company or government.
Could be, but, until it can be defined in a real way it will end up being the same thing.
On the first point @Angry Ram I empathise. We all go through that with our generation. There is pride and hope that yours will be different. Yours has all the great ideas! etc. Well news flash: All generations have something to offer, and all achieve, and fail. Morally, or otherwise. (Keep in mind, it was generations before you that were visionary enough to invent all the technology and crap you now use, and think young people have mastered over their parents.) Times are always changing. And always staying the same.
I think @fearsomefour covered that pretty well. The most closed minds I see today are on the left. They tend to want to shout down debate, and personally attack opponents. (see Agore: Global Warming/Climate Change) Which Facts get disregarded by the right?
True. That is hateful. Though also very rare. As a Christian, I abhor these tactics. Jesus loved on people, and we are all sinners. He showed love and forgiveness. I do, however, think the image of the Christian screamers and abortion protesters are overstated.
Quietly, Christian groups all over the world selflessly give and feed and love in the name of Jesus. By the thousands. They don't employ PR teams. And they are not featured in the New York Times or the Guardian.
Read that. Who are Social Media's official representatives? Surely their motives are pure. "tackling hate speech" Yes, let's tackle that. Quick quiz! Which of the following hate groups shall we monitor?
IDK. That's up to them. If it prevents it from spreading, I'm all for it.
As far as the preacher goes, I personally shrugged it off. I don't think there is a process for them. They weren't official or anything. They just show up and start shouting demeaning things.
It doesn't and I didn't say it does. My post was intended to display what it does say. So many people seem to not know or worse don't care what is written in our nations constitution. Europe has never had a Bill of Rights like what we enjoy here and we can never allow it to be taken away.Which, of course, doesn't apply to European governments - nor to private businesses like EVERY social media site.
The First Amendment purely applies to the US Federal Government and lesser governments within the US. How does it apply to what the EU is doing or what private businesses are doing? Ironically, trying to restrict what private businesses do in terms of communication by government action is itself a violation of the First Amendment.