When do you think it was that democracy became prohibited?
When do you think it was that democracy became prohibited?
Thomas Reed
Other urls found in this thread:
Kayden Phillips
Isaac Sanders
...
Xavier Ross
yeah it's not as though western "democracies" are actually real democracies, but they're supposed to still be "democratic" in the sense that the body of the public is meant to be the body of the government, and you can't stop people talking and processing ideas among themselves
except you can stop them, since comparatively speaking nobody talks to one another IRL anymore
Logan Lewis
Around the same time diversity and not unity became a strength, and men could be women. The promotion of nigspeak, bad, sick, ill, all mean good.
They have used many methods to invert reality to destroy us.
Andrew Hill
op u faggot it's constitutional republic, wtf you know it's a union of cooperating states(countries)
Jacob Adams
Outspoken leader of the labor movement, Eugene Debs opposed Woodrow Wilson as the Socialist Party candidate in the 1912 Presidential Election. Later, he would continue to rally against President Wilson and his decision to take American into war — and be jailed for it under the Espionage Act.
Lincoln Gonzalez
It really is fucking strange how people went from understanding that freedom of speech is an ideal independent from government, to like… universally parroting the idea that "it's a private company they can ban whoever they want". Yeah, they can, but "free speech" and the first amendment to the American constitution are not the same fucking thing.
It's also a bad joke considering shit like en.wikipedia.org
There's literally no restriction on government setting up "private" companies and not telling you that they're government-run, and we already fucking know that google/facebook/etc took IN-Q-TEL money. That's not even a fucking secret.
That's just a normal thing that happens in language. A lot of cute, silly, even affectionate words originally had nasty meanings, and a lot of nasty words were originally mild cute euphemisms. See also: the entire Cockney dialect.
Sebastian Wood
Hudson Wood
Public uprising is the ultimate democratic act, though.
The Greeks/Roman Republic had a real practical view of what "the will of the people" meant like that. A number of pivotal governmental acts were… influenced by a bunch of dudes turning up to the vote with big sticks, and those decisions upheld.
Ayden Williams
It was a protectorate then a government, now it's a corporation own by gods chosen… God less ISSraeelll
Juan Gray
They also (rightly) saw that since the government and the people are the same thing in a democracy, that a politician betraying the public trust isn't "a mistake" or even "ordinary corruption" like we seem to think today, but a high act of treason.
So if a politician did that, they might take them to the top of a high rock, and throw them to their death.
D E M O C R A C Y
Hunter Mitchell
...
Bentley Robinson
Facebook’s right to ban anyone they want (provided it’s fine per the contract between fb and you) is the same as your right to expect anyone to honor whatever private contract you have with them - pacta sunt servanda (and successfully sue them if they don’t). Free speech is something completely different - a universal human right guaranteed toward the state. If private individuals and companies could be sued for limiting others’ right to free expression, telling someone to shut up would be a crime. The government could set up “fake private companies”, but these still wouldn’t be able to actually limit your right to free expression - one of the three state powers would have to be at play (legislation, courts, executive - ie. a shitty law, court ruling…) for a violation of the right to free expression to occur.
Nolan Phillips
the Roman Republic and Roman Empire aren't really the same thing at all, although "bread and circuses" is a good point to bring up since it's literally the reason that governments today are so fucking eager to fund as many stadiums as they can to brainwash everyone into cola wars politics based on allegiance to primary colours–although that goes back to Greece too.
Even our word for "team" comes from the Greek word "deme", their division of voting blocs, and the same root as the word "democracy". Kind fucked up the more you think about it.
Wrong, fuckwit.
Freedom of speech is a democratic principle, a philosophical duty. The fact that governments make regulation to protect this obligation is BECAUSE it's a principle larger and prior to any one government. Discussing it in a legal context is superfluous to this fact.
You're also acting like governments, intelligence agencies in particular, can't and don't ROUTINELY do things that are illegal. Where the fuck were you when Snowden did his thing?
If Facebook and Twitter are censoring people under secret government order, or Youtube has been using black funds to supply "ad revenue" to condition the "culture" of debate on the internet, then so what if that's illegal? So what if we find out about it ten years from now and prosecute the people responsible? That act won't propagate back in time and protect anybody from being brainwashed today.
That's why people as individuals need to fight to uphold the democratic necessity of freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with the law, even if laws actually protecting it might be nice.
Anyway, there's legal precedent for privately owned spaces being ruled as the "public square" for the purpose of free speech, like shopping malls. It simply hasn't been legally tested when it comes to the internet. Better if that doesn't happen and isn't needed, but maybe we've gone too far from the ideal and it's inevitable.
Christopher Reed
Back in Rome when they decided a Republic was a better idea.
Ayden Brown
Looks like some tourist faggot didn't even bother to lurk for 2 months, much less 2 years. Fuck off to faceburg or wherever other shithole you just crawled out of
Jaxon Russell
...
Michael Rivera
retard
Jacob Smith
That's just an opinion though. Not actually a legal fact (from the standpoint of continental law at least, not American common law). It's a principle in the sense that it's a right stemming from the constitution, and in Europe from the European Convention on Human Rights, which are both more powerful than simple laws. We can discuss opinions, and I'd like to agree that human rights like free speech are above even these norms, but that's a debate on natural vs. legal rights which is kind of pointless.
The entire point of constitutional (and int'l treaty) rights like this is that if the state violates them, you can successfully sue the state for damages at the national courts and failing that, the European Court of Human Rights awards compensation.
If there had been a European Snowden, then you could use his information as evidence in those proceedings. The
It will in the sense that the people affected will be compensated and everyone will find out about it. There isn't much else that could be done about that, even outside the scope of the law.
What do you think about the principle of the rule of law (or rechtsstaat in Europe)? I think it's realistically the only thing holding our societies together.
Lucas Brown
You aren't following the conversation. The question was about how people online no longer protecting freedom of speech and instead repeating that "private companies can do what they want" line universally, which is bullshit for a handful of reasons.
I remember many long threads back around 2000 or so where people debated free speech itself every time an admin somewhere did something suss. Nowadays every time the topic comes up it's instantly shut down by that reddit-tier factoid.
Either try actually saying something or take your pills, moron.
Aaron Ross
Democracy you say?
John Brooks
Online speech is still protected by those same mechanisms. It comes down to for example Facebook's terms of service which you accept when you register, which say something like "you agree that we can delete whatever you say whenever we want". It is true that the law is always lagging back behind the progress of technology. The real problem here is that you can only properly exercise the right to free speech online if you make your own website, where your free speech isn't limited contractually. Perhaps it should be recognized in the law that Facebook, Twitter etc. have become so ubiquitous, they are the only online platforms where you can realistically express yourself and someone will see it (as opposed to a nearly invisible private site). That's an interesting idea, but I don't know how free speech could be guaranteed on those platforms. There would have to be a multilateral treaty that would create something like Facebook, but it would be an international organization created by the party states - only then would free speech apply to it, and even then the treaty would probably limit "hate speech" and such on that new platform.
I suppose the biggest issue is that Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. have become the only ways to exercise online free speech in any meaningful way, and they are private companies.
Dylan Ross
That's a photoshop, genius.
Also I'm pretty sure that was a gimmick account from some regular user anyway, so your psychic lurking meter might not be calibrated there bro
Jacob King
en.wikipedia.org
sure it is
Kevin Flores
my country has some really cool rocks and we hardly use them at all