1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Punishing censorship on social media: what do you think?

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by Estro Felino, Jan 21, 2023.

  1. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
    Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


    Article 21 Italian Constitution:
    Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.


    I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

    The article is in Italian. Here the translation with Google

    Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears. :)
     
    #1 Estro Felino, Jan 21, 2023
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2023
  2. Snow White

    Snow White Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    17,897
    Ratings:
    +14,943
    On the contrary, I'd say that censorship, though it can spin out of control, isn't one of our main worries in the US. It's propaganda. And how do you curb dangerous propaganda without censorship?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    What propaganda?:)
    One is free to say that horses can fly or that kobolds and mermaids exist.
    What's the problem?
     
  4. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    31,741
    Ratings:
    +22,284
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I think it goes back to the purpose and perception of these social media platforms and whether they should be considered publishers or utilities. If they are a utility, then they are prohibited from denying service for arbitrary reasons. A utility can't cut off someone's water or electricity just because they don't like their politics. By the same token, the utility is free from any liability if one of their customers misbehaves. Current U.S. law also limits the liability of internet companies (section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act).

    So, if they're free from any liability, there's no real legal or business-related reason for restricting or censoring any content which someone might post on their platform, unless it breaks the threshold of "clear and present danger," which is the only acceptable pretext for limiting speech. Absent that, any form of censorship practiced by these companies comes across as arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious. They act more as publishers with a political bias, as opposed to neutral facilitators and utilities. That is, of course, their right under current law, but the law appears to be wishy-washy on this particular issue. They need to pick either one or the other and stick to it: Utility or publisher? That's where the core of this dispute lies.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    They don't decide what they are. If they want to provide a country with a service, they need to abide by the law of that country. The Civil Code here says they are service providers (so utilities). :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Snow White

    Snow White Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    17,897
    Ratings:
    +14,943
    Because there is also some medical propaganda in the US which, if followed, can harm a person's health.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    Usually people go to someone who has a medicine degree to be informed about health, I guess.
    They don't go read stuff on social media.
     
  8. Kenny

    Kenny Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    19,632
    Ratings:
    +7,571
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    As with all things, there are pros and cons. I say BRAVISSIMO - and then curb the cons by laws that prevent libel..

    To go the other route is to open the door to thought control (as we see in Canada)
     
    #8 Kenny, Jan 21, 2023
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2023
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    23,881
    Ratings:
    +13,241
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    First, thought and speech are not the same things, and if your government can't understand this, then they need a tutorial.

    Second, you're claiming that this new sensorship order is to be applied "arbitrarily", which I very much doubt.

    So until you can clear your own mind of animosity, and clarify more accurately what is being proposed, and what your objection to it is, then it's pointless to try and discuss it.
     
  10. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    If you have read the article (when I have time I can translate it properly...but you can use Google Chrome) ...the bill refers to the Trump-Twitter case.
    It says that is an example of arbitrary and unjustified censorship.
     
  11. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    We are Napoleonic juridical school.
    If you explain me the difference between freedom of thought and freedom of speech, I will be grateful to you. :)
    I can't see any difference.
     
    #11 Estro Felino, Jan 21, 2023
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2023
  12. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    This is an example of unjustified and arbitrary censorship

     
  13. Wildswanderer

    Wildswanderer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2021
    Messages:
    10,175
    Ratings:
    +2,142
    Religion:
    Christian
    It's better than the thought police we have had up till now.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Snow White

    Snow White Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    17,897
    Ratings:
    +14,943
    Do you have any proof of that statement?

    That doesn't seem to always be the case in my country.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. Soandso

    Soandso Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2022
    Messages:
    223
    Ratings:
    +324
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Ehhh, that's not been my experience. One side of my family are pretty heavy science deniers. They tried to give my 86 year old grandma ivermectin instead of taking her to the hospital after she got covid

    Thankfully it took too long to come in the mail so she instead got the medical treatment she needed when someone else brought her to the hospital
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    23,881
    Ratings:
    +13,241
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    It's very simple. I am free to think anything. Period. And no one can stop me because no one can control my mind. I am not free to say anything I think, however, because it is possible for someone else to stop me.

    So, we need to regulate what we say in a collective society just as we need to regulate any other behavior in a collective society. And if we are wise, we will do so based on the goal of maintaining peace, unity, and equality within that collective society.

    That means we do not have the right to say or do anything we want, and neither does anyone else in our society so as to equally protect us each from being harmed by another. And it is possible to harm someone through but speech and action. (Speech IS a form of action.)

    For example we do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater just because we think it's funny. People may well be injured as a result, and we can be prosecuted for the harm we caused them by our speech.

    We can also harm other people by telling lies about them that cost them income or opportunities that they were otherwise expected to receive.

    These are just two common examples, but there are many others. People use speech to do each other harm, often, and given certain conditions, doing so is a crime that can be prosecuted.

    I doubt that Italy has no such similar laws, even though you keep insisting that it does not. Because every society has learned through time that certain laws need to be in place and enforced to maintain the peace and cohesion of their respective societies.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    22,210
    Ratings:
    +9,128
    Religion:
    Christianity
    In abstract, this speech is absolutely flawless.
    But I would like to speak of specific, factual cases: like the Twitter case, where employees have confessed that they used to censor people who would spread "right-wing ideas", even if completely harmless.

    The Italian draft bill is referring to such social media.
     
  18. wellwisher

    wellwisher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    2,060
    Ratings:
    +693
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Dangerous propaganda works much better, if you can censor those who will undermine the scam, using their right to free speech.

    For example, the Twitter files show us how the Democrat led Swamp used dangerous propaganda to keep the Hunter Biden Laptop story quiet, just before the midterms election, by calling it Russian propaganda. This propaganda was dangerous since it involved election interference which is dangerous to Democracy. What benefits the Swamp is not automatically good for all.

    To make that and any dangerous propaganda work, they had to censor free speech connected to anyone who could undermine their scam. It was taboo to interfere in their dangerous propaganda. If we had had free speech, this may not have become as big an issue, since the very people, who were censored, would fight the scan, and may have changed the outcome.

    The more common fear of free speech, is that weak minded people will whine too much, some will melt like ice cream in July and some will overreact and hurt others. To maintain free speech we may need a way to protect the weak minded from themselves. For example, if one whines too much, or gets too angry or obsessed, due to mental confusion, caused by free speech, we can give them a time out, so they can cool off; shadow banding some sites for one day. Then they go back to full free speech. This time out can occur as many times as needed to help them become stronger minded. The goal is to help them handle anything, and not just become a pile of mush, or a zombie with rabies looking for an excuse to feed.

    It makes more sense to help strengthen the weak minded, so we all can tolerate totally free speech. If you cannot handle all thoughts, there are other places that will be better for you. Do not gravitate to what pushes your buttons, unless the goal is to expressed emotions or to become desensitized. St Paul said; "All things are lawful, but not all thing edify. All things are lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything." We worry most about those who get mastered by words and ideas; they can lose control.

    We may also need to make sure Big Government is not running Swamp scams. This can be done with mandatory punishment, that has no statute of limitations. Like with the dangerous propaganda of the Biden laptop, now that the scam is well known, the criminals would be rounded up, and placed in prison as a future deterrent. As long as they can escapes justice, we will need full free speech to fight back.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    23,881
    Ratings:
    +13,241
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Twitter is a private company providing a service. They are allowed to regulate that process to best provide that service. The same way a fancy restaurant can deny service if you are't wearing a jacket and tie. The dress code is part of the service they are selling. And it is part of the service other people are paying for. So the provider has a right to regulate that service to the liking of their customers.

    The vast majority of Twitter users (costomers) do not want to put up with a few toxic extremists, and the company had the right to regulate the service it provides and charges them for, accordingly.
    It's no different than my being asked to leave a restaurant because I'm not wearing a shirt or shoes. I am behaving antithetically to the service the restaurant provides, and is charging other customers for. If they let me in, they are in effect cheating their other customers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    223,450
    Ratings:
    +87,839
    Religion:
    Atheist
    If someone dislikes the terms of service on
    any social media platform, don't sign up.
    Some censorship is useful.
    Would you want posters on RF being able
    to profanely abuse each other without limit?

    Some platforms allow more leeway, or they
    censor in different ways. Diversity rules.

    BTW, I wonder if Italy is really as bad or
    extreme as you post about it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...