trekjunky

I hope you find the time to discuss free speech as you seem very confident in your understanding of free speech. Here's two scenarios that may lend to your understanding my capability in hopes of engaging you.
 
1) An armed man enters a public place yelling everyone needs to be shot.
2) An unarmed man enters a public place yelling everyone needs to be shot.
3) A person enters a public place to incite violence by yelling certain offensive words at people of color.
 
In 1) the offender is threatening violence by pointing his gun, so the public sees him as a criminal and would censor him if they could. He is mixing action with free speech and would be censored to prevent violence.
 
In 2) the offender is spouting obscenities. The public probably wouldn't see him as a criminal, but as a mentally ill man, so again to prevent violent action, they censor him.
 
In 3) The violence incited would be against the speaker, so do we legalize vengeance, or censor the man for his own safety, again to prevent violence. 
 
In the private arena, people should learn to respectfully engage with others and realize that the only solution to "irritating" speech is more free speech.
 
MUCH MORE SPEECH should be called irritating instead of offensive.
 
The threat of violence is the driving force to censor, because most times speech like that leads to violence.

I should get a world-class lawyer and take my case all the way to the supreme court. I mean the American revolution is borne out of grievances to have to pay taxes. How dare they tax me. 

Question, if my parents/boss tell me not to swear or talk back, is that censorship?

I have argued elsewhere that the social media platforms be declared as public places because they have polarized the country. People are now living in bubbles of their liking and excluding indiscriminately all others instead of learning to live with them.  Tribalism is a huge problem and the cause is the god right to block anyone anytime on most private platforms. 
 
Very good example of violent speech which mixes actions with speech. What if the offender walks in unarmed and starts yelling that all the customers be shot? You wouldn't think he is a criminal but you would think he is mentally ill and remove him BEFORE any violent actions are taken by the offender. So censoring actions seems what you advocate, not censoring speech, wouldn't you say?

It would,   I have a small anonymous account I use to keep track of people who only use facebook.  If I counldn't block out all the fucking stupid memes about organic food and natural anti represents  I would have canned that account years ago.   I know a lot of people who block copious amounts of irritating content because its clogs up their feeds. 

No, I understood.  What you are posing both requires the bill of rights to be changed and would not actually cure the echo chamber nature of society but send it elsewhere.  I.E if people can't block annoying david wolfe memes then they will stop using the platform.

whichever is the lesser evil at the moment. we have to just order that from the menu. only thing we can do now.
 
i hope one day AI can take over governing large mass of people & burn everything illogical out of the text books. no biased politicians or laws or rules.  everything purely leveled and logical, strict fairness in its pure form. no emotion or emotionally attached reasoning or rules .  everyone pays true & equal fair share of their choices & opinions.

With the Freedom of Religion law, the religious people can do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. The Congress is BANNED from making laws that puts one religion over another, so the religious can't count on the government to help push their agenda which imo is a great thing. 
 
Politics are as bad as religion. They fuel nationalism to give them purpose. They do this with lies. They twist scientific fact to suit their agenda. I would never argue that we have too much freedom, but some would while not understanding that taking away one freedom leads to most freedoms taken away.

this might sound crude, but religious people when you get closer to the core of it , usually are sorta aggressively territorial in terms of "im more right than you" and in general the belief system is always cursed with arrogance topped with willingness to act out on it & seducing the weak to an ideology is always present . they seek shelter in numbers for that cause , sustainability & stability, why i'm saying this is when given power it grows to survive, not to co-exist. it might happen in a fast pace or a really slow pace , but it happens.
 
it might work in theory & in a sort of stagnant safe spaces , everyone holds hands & singing kum ba ya or something, everyone likes each other show off.  but a system which contains this & nourishes it excessively would fall prey to it. when it gets power. lots of real world examples where it rises to trample on others near its territory.
 
in my opinion , we don't control the ideological mess we already have , we can offer to a hold bold & present alternatives that challenge them , but forcing another & enforcing them to believe & follow a thing or a statement or an idea(good or bad) , where they are clueless & is forced or feared into doing something is not democracy or free speech in my opinion. (religion, science, evolution, vaccines, flat earth or whatever) they must have their own freedom to think and express & a right to exclude themselves willingly against with the other opinions , but not in excess where it tries to control everything others do to or is something too critical , restrained practice is what i mean. but some form of oversight is necessary & these people must be allowed to know and hear other facts & convince themselves.
 
imo what we need now is a form of recusal from everyone , which realistically is too much to ask from anyone,  a place where you can question them & where they can question us as well. an open platform which asks true questions , gives proofs , guidance & reasoning . but truth is it's usually chaos & will end up like a live chat session on 4chan . excuses turning into insults, BUT AS ALWAYS  truth will set you free in the long run . but truth needs to be visible & present & not silenced . this is where generic censorship comes to play.

I'm sorry. My bad. I did not come across clearly. When I was equating pollution to free speech, I was referring to the huge, enormous, problem (disaster) of Tribalism. On platforms like facebook, Tribalism is caused by the god right to censor (block) anyone anytime indiscriminately. It causes the polarization of online groups which infiltrates our culture, society  in the real world. In that light, the corporations that inadvertently cause Tribalism have a responsibility to public health. So, changing the block feature would NOT be so cost prohibitive. But it would cure Tribalism. The change can be described as allowing people to ignore a person, but the posts of that person will still be able to be seen by everyone else.
 
People, on some platforms, can delete posts as well which also causes Tribalism. Censoring is NOT a good thing, publicly or privately. Censorship is about control of one person by another. It's WAY PAST time to force the corporations to change the way they approach free speech.
 
If the threat of violence isn't there, then the speech is legally allowed, publicly. Privately, the owner legally can censor anyone anytime, but usually they don't unless they have religious objections to something or someone. The censored person can stand on the public sidewalk in front of the store and the owner can't censor them unless they feel threatened financially, then they can call the police. Then the censored person can go to another place and speak about the first place without repercussion. They can write about it. 

Censorship is about control of one person over another. That doesn't sit well with me. Censorship is as bad privately as it is publicly.
 
I agree with everything you said except the suggestion to punish the liars. You punish one, then they will go anonymous or use alias after alias. It would be very hard if not impossible to find the perpetrator, let alone punish them. Prohibition never worked. Not with alcohol nor cigarettes nor drugs. And you wan to add free speech to the list of prohibited things.

Cannot agree with you there. The people giving the warning cannot be trusted. It does not matter who they are. All humans given power become corrupt and wield that power to their own ends. Which is why all the major fact finding sites like Politifact, are easily shown partisan hackery (seriously look up how many subjective statements are fact checked!). 

You can try setting software that's compute intensive to a high nice value so it doesn't compete for your needs.  Leave htop running and see if it's using all the RAM or swap too.   True to log into the system via ssh if you can also when it freezes.  It might take a minute or two if it under heavy load though. 

I believe that the freedom of speech needs to be extended to the likes of Facebook and Twitter. Reason being that politicians are using those platforms for their gains and silencing dissent by blocking users. We can't rely on these companies to make things fair for everyone. Politicians using these platforms for self-indulgence are under the direction of the Constitution and must be held according to its doctrine. 

There should be a way to mitigate the rampant spread of misinformation, unfortunately this issue isn't only found in certain publications and whatnot, but also on the readers themselves; people will share whatever aligns with their thoughts/beliefs while disregarding the source of the material and how said material was put together. 
 
No news organization is free from sin imo, everyone is gonna say/send what they THINK is true and a lot will either stick to it or ignore it ever happened when they get called out for it.
Additionally, those who consume those bits of information need to be critical when it comes to distinguishing whether it's true or false.
 
You, as a viewer, need to dig into the piece you're reading; look up the person who wrote it, their sources and if they're reliable or from a reputable publication/study.
Having a single entity police every piece of information that is published would be difficult imo (I know you said flagged info, but that's still gonna be a lot, especially if people started to pay attention), but it's still better than nothing. 
 
Punishing the person or entity that spreads misleading and misinformed news/study might help if the punishment is sever enough to sway people from doing so. 

he says: "censorship should be a legal criime againt free speech in every part of our American culture"
but i don't liv in America.......................

You could be experiencing a heavy load which looks like a hard lock up. But, if you can move the mouse, then the kernel hasn't crapped out. So that's good. 
 
You might want to use this: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/help.php . They actually have free live support for people trying to use SETI@home. 
 
Let me know if that helps =D. If they can't figure it out, we can take another crack at it. 

One thing is first, a lot of you all here are right.

It's an issue of rights of a private company (though publicly traded which I wonder if there are any exemptions) and the boundaries of the first amendment and it's applicability.
 
Personally, if Trump's twitter is seen as a public forum because he's the president, then why isn't the entirety of twitter treated that way?
In effect, though a user block is like a Protection Order in the real world.
 
Twitter is a publicly traded company, so I wonder if any of the private property argument is still valid.

I guess as a whole, the shareholders would have to want to enforce a change of not prohibiting political debate that may not be in their views as long as it doesn't violate the things free speech doesn't cover.

There are really only two principals I think you need to understand:
 
1. free speech only guarantees you not to be charged for questioning the government, it does not in any way guarantee you a platform to say whatever you want.
 
2. It is a very dangerous precedent to set to force private entities to entertain/promote any form of speech that they disagree with.
 
Before you worry about tribal (btw we call them echo chambers) issues and lies perpetuated in social media, you first have to understand the difference between what is important to you and what is important to the whole community and humanity moving forward.
 
 
 
 

But certain content cause advertisers to flee a platform, YouTube being a recent example, it discouraged Disney from buying Twitter. Private companies obligation is to their shareholders, not to their users or society at large. For a social media platform to be considered truly a public space it would have to be taxpayer funded.

speaking of social groups, look at the whole SJW moment & the opposing anti sjw movement that came up during last few years , the usual boundaries were crossed for good and for bad & people were drawing lines all over the place saying this is good & where it stops for everyone & that is bad for others etc. both sides have good intentions, but it's chaos, that's one of the problems , no common ground whatsoever, it always will be like that, especially when feelings are involved logic stops to be in the process of reasoning
 
Now a huge problem is accountability, who gets to regulates that?  the very recent example misgendering a trans kid over internet or an interview issues being brought up by the news , it seems silly to one side as it's harmless logical argument & on the other it interferes with their acceptance into the society which equates to a hate speech. here only political points & favoring number from whichever political party saturating the region, plays the outcome . no matter how we discuss about whats right or wrong the ones who control the political field will get to decide the outcome in that region.it always reduces down to groups controlling other groups citing "fairness" , but it's heavily opinionated. not a common theme.

it's a good idea , But what would one consider be right & wrong in that private & or public place? who makes the rules? this can only translate to safe spaces & others  where there's more division & no unison,  huge problem is one persons view of right might be another ones wrong. especially when this gets to a huge volume of people with their disturbing opinions in a public space, only sensible way is to make it a place without any rules to state your opinion, which will invoke & huge deal of emotional trauma to both sides, by the end of the day everybody wants control.

Public vs private. I have argued elsewhere that due to the huge, enormous, effect Tribalism has on our culture, we should legally declare some platforms as public places. See I do understand you. Throwing out the word private when that private place entertains millions at any one time seems incongruous. Is a private Church really a public place because so many congregate there at any one time? Is a party store which gets a hundred customers a day or less a private business or a place where the public goes to get items and expects the safety of a public place? Slapping the word "private" on a huge endeavor like an online platform seems out of place. I mean, how big can a private entity get BEFORE it is declared a public place. 
 
What about a private concert hall? It's a big place with about a thousand of the public gathering there? With so much of the public there, it seems that it SHOULD be that the rights of the private owner are superseded by the public's right to  free speech and safety. I know it is NOT that way now, but I would like to change it.
 
First, a copy of the first amendment:
 
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.
 
Second, I would like to focus on : 
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...
 
So, it is interpreted that it does NOT apply to private places as if the private places are sovereign nations. But that is an interpretation. If you look at it, constitutionally, congress is being bound by this law, not the private owners. 
 
But what if the private place contains thousands or millions of the public at any one time. Is it now a public place, or is there no end to the sovereignty of private places?

generally speaking free speech ties to government bound restriction of a persons view or opinion that's controversial or whatever. they cant be punished or restricted by the governing body in a nutshell. unless it's an extremist threat that put lives in danger.
 
usually it boils down to the community in which you are living , some complain , some react, some go overboard, some oppress others, some encourage to express opinions,  that's the reality of it, in a nutshell everyone has their own bad opinions,  if you're in a good community then people will understand & process accordingly,  but due to culture , religion, region,community & whatever changes , things shift accordingly. especially when two polarizing opposites meet & there's a conflict in whats right or wrong,
 
free speech imo is everyone's right as a human being in a community , weather it's opposing to what we've learned so far or something we are new to or whatever or even utter stupid in fact  . they must have the right to speak out & state their case & they must have the freedom to do that and express & at the same time they themselves must be willing to hear the others opinion.  the usual outcome for all this is always around how a community is. but all of us must be able to differentiate between one stating an opinion in it's true nature versus consistent attacks that's design to damage something in a deceptive form.usually this is the grey area where all the chaos happens.

Your examples don't make any sense and have nothing to do with concept of free speech. Freedom of expression or free speech as its written in US constitution for example, means that anyone has right to have an opinion about things. The government doesn't have any right to suppress those opinions. You can have opinions about government actions and politicians working there, you can talk about them freely and there won't be any criminal prosecution against you.
 
Why I don't think that you understand the concept then when its that simple? Because you talk about forum moderation, and maybe some other platform, having censorship. Forums, and any other platform, are privately owned. While they need to follow laws of countries they operate in, free speech isn't something they need to uphold just like that. They don't need to have free reign for everyone joining just because there's something called "free speech". Since, like I just explained, that means only that government can't actively suppress your rights to express yourself. Private companies are different. They usually have set of rules which you agree upon when joining. Just like here. If you violate those rules, you are in breach of contract, in a way. Meaning that when contract is about you having an account on site, they have right to terminate that account since its violating their set rules. If you would go to court, you wouldn't get far arguing that site is limiting your free speech. Well, not unless its politics forum and your opinions about government are being deleted. But as this is tech forum which has very clearly banned all political talk (for obvious reasons), that kind of case is pretty hard to make.
 
Besides that. I know for a fact that nobody gets insta-banned from here because they are offensive or annoying towards other members. They get friendly note first, then handful or warnings before being booted out. If someone is too thick-headed to believe warnings, there's little we can do about that. If you claim that you have been banned from here at first offense, or you know someone that has, its most likely that you/they have actually been banned long time ago as ban evasion and creating alternative account is much harsher conflict against forum that just having bad habit and lack of self-control.

No, not at all.
My example had nothing to do with violent speech nor assumptions of mental health.
 
I'm talking of some that walks into a store and begins yelling insults at the other customers.
While non of it are threats, it can still be seen as uncomfortable by the other customers. Who wanna get insulted while out shopping?
It's therefore in the interest of the store to remove the abusive patron. Not because he's threating to the customers but because he's threating to their bottomline.
It's for the same reason Facebook, Twitter, LTT Forum, etc. all have an interest in removing posts and interactions they see an improper.