Freedom of Speech, a Perspective from Abroad

[VicBee]

Americans obsess over their freedom of speech like no other citizens of other countries. Europe is more constricted while dictatorships of the Right and Left can be brutal. Welcome to Singapore:

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...ed-on-online-posts-made-over-three-weeks-ago/

Singapore
Josephine Teo issues POFMA directions issued on online posts made over three weeks ago
By Terry Xu -May 20, 20235

On Friday (19 May), Mrs Josephine Teo, the Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Home Affairs, instructed the POFMA Office to issue Correction Directions for the below posts:

Kirsten Han’s Facebook posts on 19 April 2023 and 22 April 2023;
Han’s “We the Citizens” article published on 19 April 2023;
Han’s Twitter post on 19 April 2023;
Transformative Justice Collective’s Facebook post on 23 April;
M Ravi’s Facebook posts on 20 April 2023 and 27 April 2023;
The Online Citizen Asia’s article published on its website on 28 April 2023 ;
TOCA’s Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter posts on 28 April 2023; and
Andrew Loh’s Facebook post on 24 April 2023.

These posts pertain to a 46-year-old Singaporean Tamil, Tangaraju S/O Suppiah who was executed by the Singapore Government on 26 April over an alleged conspiracy to smuggle one kilogram of cannabis.

The Ministry of Home Affairs said in a press release that the social media posts and articles contained “false statements” about the capital sentence that was given to Tangaraju, including being denied an interpreter during the recording of his statement and that he was later found to be not guilty.

Under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), these entities and individuals are required to carry a correction notice alongside their publications. Failure to do so will result in them being deemed to have committed an arrestable offense, which carries a fine not exceeding $20,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.

...

© © The Online Citizen Asia 2006 - 2023

 

[Cuddles]

A "benevolent" dictatorship is still a dictatorship. What happened, his antisemitism disappointed? I thought you didn't want to stifle those voices?

I think right wingers will be disappointed with the changes he seems to want to bring to Twitter, if he does buy the platform. I agree with the need to allow various points of view, and I also agree that anyone posting on Twitter should be identified by their real name. It's amazing how much more restrained people become when their identity is in the open..

Free speech is a multi edge sword. It gives radical ideas an avenue for discourse. We have been used to left leaning radical ideas since the 60s and the general centrist leaning consensus is inclusion. But Trump and co have pulled the sheet off the radical right ideas and somehow made them almost mainstream and today's great American schism revolves around what free speech is.
However much I dislike right wing discourse on most social issues, I think it's important not to stifle those voices, precisely because extreme ideas usually propagate in the dark. The public square ought to dare all to speak up.
I think Musk believes this and wants Twitter to be the public square, without subjective minders to control the square. However, he (and I) believe anyone who speaks must take responsibility for their words and he aligns with European rules on free speech: anyone who speaks must be identifiable, and anyone who slenders must be ready to face justice. With great rights come great responsibilities.
Musk also wants to rid Twitter of the propaganda machines that overwhelm the square, from 2 bit peddlers to powerful dark money. The square should be an avenue for discourse, not an MMA hexagon.
So yes, I think Musk is driven by a fundamental common good goal. He also believes that if he can make money from it, even better.

 

[VicBee]

A "benevolent" dictatorship is still a dictatorship. What happened, his antisemitism disappointed? I thought you didn't want to stifle those voices?

View attachment 315344

As an advocate for free speech you're railing against Musk exercising his.
For information, I'm not a a free speech advocate because one's free speech is invariably another's insult when living in a pluralistic society. I've also consistently called out Musk for his political nonsense and also suggested he steps down from Tesla if his Trumpian need for attention continues unabated. If anything, Musk shows how one can be both extraordinary and appalling.

 

[Cuddles]

As an advocate for free speech you're railing against Musk exercising his.
For information, I'm not a a free speech advocate because one's free speech is invariably another's insult when living in a pluralistic society. I've also consistently called out Musk for his political nonsense and also suggested he steps down from Tesla if his Trumpian need for attention continues unabated. If anything, Musk shows how one can be both extraordinary and appalling.

one's freedom of speech does not grant one freedom from criticism so being an advocate is neither here nor there. I am in fact criticizing your speech, not Musk's, as you have done a 180 from initially defending Musk's platforming of all speech.

I think right wingers will be disappointed with the changes he seems to want to bring to Twitter, if he does buy the platform. I agree with the need to allow various points of view, and I also agree that anyone posting on Twitter should be identified by their real name. It's amazing how much more restrained people become when their identity is in the open..

Free speech is a multi edge sword. It gives radical ideas an avenue for discourse. We have been used to left leaning radical ideas since the 60s ...
However much I dislike right wing discourse on most social issues, I think it's important not to stifle those voices, precisely because extreme ideas usually propagate in the dark. The public square ought to dare all to speak up.
I think Musk believes this and wants Twitter to be the public square, without subjective minders to control the square. However, he (and I) believe anyone who speaks must take responsibility for their words and he aligns with European rules on free speech: anyone who speaks must be identifiable, and anyone who slenders must be ready to face justice. With great rights come great responsibilities.
Musk also wants to rid Twitter of the propaganda machines that overwhelm the square, from 2 bit peddlers to powerful dark money. The square should be an avenue for discourse, not an MMA hexagon.
So yes, I think Musk is driven by a fundamental common good goal. He also believes that if he can make money from it, even better.

 

[VicBee]

one's freedom of speech does not grant one freedom from criticism so being an advocate is neither here nor there. I am in fact criticizing your speech, not Musk's, as you have done a 180 from initially defending Musk's platforming of all speech.

Too easy to emphasize some points of my posts without context. I believe diversity of viewpoints is important provided posters identify themselves online, to give legal recourse to those who may be slighted from accusations.
In my book, hate speech should be subject to fines, like running a red light. But we should tolerate political divergent views because they are a reflection of our society. Without Trump, for example, middle class America would not have been aware of the weight that far right white supremacists and Christian zealots hold in our country. Turns out, the KKK wasn't just southern folklore.
As far as I'm concerned, allow speech provided you can defend "facts" or face fines. That could dent the deficit!

 

[Cuddles]

Too easy to emphasize some points of my posts without context.

I don't know wtf you're talking about...context is right there for all to see, or they can click the link to posts if they need more.

I believe diversity of viewpoints is important provided posters identify themselves online, to give legal recourse to those who may be slighted from accusations.

In my book, hate speech should be subject to fines, like running a red light.

It's nice you believe that, the reality is 99.999% of shitposts are protected speech so someone being "slighted" would mean fuck all legally speaking. And as you've witnessed, transferring your beliefs to Musk (in prior post) was merely confirmation bias. Or did "catturd" paying a blue checkmark fee asked for his social security number to run thru the system or merely asked for a burner phone number you can pick for cash at the gas station?

But we should tolerate political divergent views because they are a reflection of our society. Without Trump, for example, middle class America would not have been aware of the weight that far right white supremacists and Christian zealots hold in our country. Turns out, the KKK wasn't just southern folklore.

Thinking white supremacist zealotry being "folklore" means living in lala land if you think Trump exposed it.

As far as I'm concerned, allow speech provided you can defend "facts" or face fines. That could dent the deficit!

That's nice but it's a 180 of what you stated in the past (allowing extreme right wing voices). Right wing voices at present are completely devoid of facts and thriving on fiction.

 

[VicBee]

I don't know wtf you're talking about...context is right there for all to see, or they can click the link to posts if they need more.



It's nice you believe that, the reality is 99.999% of shitposts are protected speech so someone being "slighted" would mean fuck all legally speaking. And as you've witnessed, transferring your beliefs to Musk (in prior post) was merely confirmation bias. Or did "catturd" paying a blue checkmark fee asked for his social security number to run thru the system or merely asked for a burner phone number you can pick for cash at the gas station?


Thinking white supremacist zealotry being "folklore" means living in lala land if you think Trump exposed it.


That's nice but it's a 180 of what you stated in the past (allowing extreme right wing voices). Right wing voices at present are completely devoid of facts and thriving on fiction.

You and I can run around in circles over this. You rail against the Right and their nonsense but recognize there's nothing that can be done about it and you want to rail against them anyway. End of story. I merely gave "what if" scenarios to reign in on nonsense from all political spectrum.

 

[Cuddles]

You and I can run around in circles over this. You rail against the Right and their nonsense but recognize there's nothing that can be done about it and you want to rail against them anyway. End of story. I merely gave "what if" scenarios to reign in on nonsense from all political spectrum.

dat there battle of ideas using more speech to expose bad speech. Your "what if" scenario takes us down this path:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/cmon-canada.359791/

 

[Bugenhagen]

You and I can run around in circles over this. You rail against the Right and their nonsense but recognize there's nothing that can be done about it and you want to rail against them anyway. End of story. I merely gave "what if" scenarios to reign in on nonsense from all political spectrum.

"As an advocate for free speech you're railing against Musk exercising his." you wrote.

In a philosophy discussion among professors and students it is standard to define your terms for key ideas you are about to use.

So what do you mean by free speech because it is notoriously misunderstood by many Amercians and applied too broadly.

The right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution only applies to the government. This means that the government cannot censor or punish people for what they say, except in certain limited circumstances.

Private individuals and businesses are not bound by the First Amendment. This means that they can censor or punish people for what they say, as long as they do not violate any other laws.

So Musk can say what he likes about the government but ONLY the government. If he libels or slanders an individual or a corporation he is fair game.

 

[Cuddles]

"As an advocate for free speech you're railing against Musk exercising his." you wrote.

In a philosophy discussion among professors and students it is standard to define your terms for key ideas you are about to use.

So what do you mean by free speech because it is notoriously misunderstood by many Amercians and applied too broadly.

The right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution only applies to the government. This means that the government cannot censor or punish people for what they say, except in certain limited circumstances.

Private individuals and businesses are not bound by the First Amendment. This means that they can censor or punish people for what they say, as long as they do not violate any other laws.

So Musk can say what he likes about the government but ONLY the government. If he libels or slanders an individual or a corporation he is fair game.

The irony here is VicBee was all in on Twitter "opening free speech" while he lobbies for looking at other governments that curb speech as examples to follow. I have zero problem w/Twitter imposing their TOS and suppressing offensive speech and personally believe private companies should but I have no tolerance for government getting their sticky fingers on our speech.