Reddit CEO Actively Altered/Censored User Comments

[SansVarnic]

On 12/3/2016 at 10:58 AM, apm said:

reddit was build on freedom of speech, that includes bigots, racists etc.

any democracy has to endure them too.

I love this argument. The 1st amendment in the US Constitution was not designed for idiots to run their mouth. The Freedom of speech in the US is/was intended and written to protect the people from retaliation of the government for speaking out against government practices not this blow-hearted ideal of  "I have the right to speak my mind crap". 

No dummy you have the right to speak out not to make a fool of yourself. <-- not aimed specifically at the OP.

 

Such ignorance.  

Freedom of Speech(foolishness) my arse.

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

I love this argument. The 1st amendment was not designed for idiots to run their mouth. The freedom of speech is/was intended and written to protect the people from retaliation of the government for speaking out against government practices not this blow-hearted ideal of  "I have the right to speak my mind crap" 

No dummy you have the right to speak out not to make a fool of yourself. <-- not aimed specifically at the OP.

 

Such ignorance.  

Freedom of Speech(foolishness) my arse.

The 1st Amendment allows you to say whatever you want, even racist shit, so long as you do not incite harm on others or harm others with that speech. It was not and ever was in concern only for government related issues.

 

EDIT

 

 

Quote

 

Amendment I

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.

 

Please pay attention to the careful usage of the conjunction "or" and the semi-colon.

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, Albatross said:

The 1st Amendment allows you to say whatever you want, even racist shit, so long as you do not incite harm on others or harm others with that speech. It was not and ever was in concern only for government related issues.

Umm No, go re-read it and the notes of the debate that decided on the how it was to be written. It is all there.

The founding fathers (Continental Congress) wanted a way to protect the people that were willing to speak out against corrupt practices of government officials. It was the fear at the time be cause it was common practice for the English governors to silence those that spoke out against the King of England.

 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Albatross said:

The 1st Amendment allows you to say whatever you want, even racist shit, so long as you do not incite harm on others or harm others with that speech. It was not and ever was in concern only for government related issues.

Only against the government. If you want to talk &hit to a private citizen, please refer to slander or harassment laws.

 

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol38_2011/fall2011/the_intersection_of_free_speech_and_harassment_rules.html

 

TL:DR: A singular event is likely not going to cause a judge to spend his time. Multiple, or escalating, events with similar behavior will be seen as harassment.

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Umm No, go re-read it and the notes of the debate that decided on the how it was to be written. It is all there.

The founding fathers (Continental Congress) wanted a way to protect the people that were willing to speak out against corrupt practices of government officials. It was the fear at the time be cause it was common practice for the English governors to silence those that spoke out against the King of England.

 

I just provided it. It was not only about corruption in the government. They made sure to be very clear. I don't care what someone argues about it. The Amendment does not relate only to the discussion of government matters. If it had, they would have been sure to point it out.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Albatross said:

I just provided it. It was not only about corruption in the government. They made sure to be very clear. I don't care what someone argues about it. The Amendment does not relate only to the discussion of government matters. If it had, they would have been sure to point it out.

That's not how laws work. The amendment is specific towards a topic and it stays on the topic. Other laws are made to work around it as a supplement to the extents that you're allowed to deviate, for example, manslaughter in self-defense vs murder.

 

Manslaughter, in itself, is killing without mens rea malicious forethought. Murder includes mens rea (the idea that your action is lawfully wrong) and commitment.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

 

P.s. I find it funny that words such as "like", "and", and "the" have hyperlinks to their own definitions.

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

That's not how laws work. The amendment is specific towards a topic and it stays on the topic. Other laws are made to work around it as a supplement to the extents that you're allowed to deviate, for example, manslaughter in self-defense vs murder.

 

Manslaughter, in itself, is killing without mens rea malicious forethought. Murder includes mens rea (the idea that your action is lawfully wrong) and commitment.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

 

P.s. I find it funny that words such as "like", "and", and "the" have hyperlinks to their own definitions.

The amendment is specific towards a topic, but it does not say it concerns only governmental issues. Grammar plays an important part here and it was made clear the separate issues it directed. Our founding fathers believed in absolute freedom of speech and true liberty. You can't have either of that if it relates only to corruption in power.

[SansVarnic]

22 minutes ago, Albatross said:

I just provided it. It was not only about corruption in the government. They made sure to be very clear. I don't care what someone argues about it. The Amendment does not relate only to the discussion of government matters. If it had, they would have been sure to point it out.

Quote

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.

Looks pretty specific to me. 

Quote

The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.

~https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/the-freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press-clause/interp/33

Quote

At the time of our nation’s inception, the Founders believed that the open, free exchange of ideas was necessary for the survival of a representative democracy. As Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”  To protect this principle, the Founders established the freedoms of speech and the press in the First Amendment.

~https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/amendment_i_freedom_of_religion_speech_press_and_assembly

Quote

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault, from school officials stripping students of their right to express their faith and local governments and police forbidding citizens from expressing unpopular views in public to members of the press being threatened with jail time for reporting on important government programs.

~https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/amendment_i_freedom_of_religion_speech_press_and_assembly

The debate will go on forever but the founding fathers were pretty clear on their intent.

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Looks pretty specific to me. 

The debate will go on forever but the founding fathers were pretty clear on their intent.

None of that [source] specifically states freedom of speech relates only to government. The semi-colons and conjuctions separate the "government" related issues from the other points it covered.

 

EDIT

 

Damn it, keeps posting before I'm done!

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Albatross said:

The amendment is specific towards a topic, but it does not say it concerns only governmental issues. Grammar plays an important part here and it was made clear the separate issues it directed. Our founding fathers believed in absolute freedom of speech and true liberty. You can't have either of that if it relates only to corruption in power.

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.

 

The orange shows the portions I'm referring to. These are not separate laws. They are all working towards one objective and that is that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

 

The law is as clear as you said, but you're taking it piece-meal as if each idea is its own entity.

[SansVarnic]

4 minutes ago, Albatross said:

The amendment is specific towards a topic, but it does not say it concerns only governmental issues. Grammar plays an important part here and it was made clear the separate issues it directed. Our founding fathers believed in absolute freedom of speech and true liberty. You can't have either of that if it relates only to corruption in power.

Yes you are correct the fathers wanted this. Bu that is not the argument presented in the 1st amendment, the point of the 1st is the protection from the government for speaking out as I pointed out before.

1 minute ago, Albatross said:

None of that specifically states freedom of speech relates only to government.

Yes it does. Shall I highlight the words?

[Albatross]

 

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Yes you are correct the fathers wanted this. Bu that is not the argument presented in the 1st amendment, the point of the 1st is the protection from the government for speaking out as I pointed out before.

Yes it does. Shall I highlight the words?

Highlight the words all you want. It does not make it mean what you want it to mean. They are separated through careful grammar and wording for a reason.

 

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

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.

 

The orange shows the portions I'm referring to. These are not separate laws. They are all working towards one objective and that is that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

 

The law is as clear as you said, but you're taking it piece-meal as if each idea is its own entity.

 

As I have said. There are semi-colons separating each issue it directs not that each are separate laws (e.i, it is directing separate issues). The last piece it discusses is the right to petition the government for redress. This is separated by the previous issues, such as the right for people to assemble peacefully. And that is separated yet again by the right of the press and once more by freedom of speech.

 

This is why I said grammar is crucial. The semi-colon is a pause between clauses and you can further understand its role in a sentence by looking at following or proceeding conjunctions.

 

Quote

The semicolon or semi-colon^[1] (;) is a punctuation mark that separates major sentence elements. A semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses, provided they are not already joined by a coordinating conjunction. Semicolons can also be used in place of commas to separate items in a list, particularly when the elements of that list contain commas.^[2]

 

As of how they intended and as by how they used their grammar, the Amendment never states the freedom of speech relates only to the government.

 

EDIT

 

This is why so many lawyers and politicians are arguing whether or not we should amend it to limit freedom of speech so that hate speech (racist remarks) etc are excluded.

[ARikozuM]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Spoiler

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. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

 

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.   

The Amendment states the freedoms your are afforded as unassailable by the government or Congress.

 

Take a look at the Fighting Words and Defamation links. You are not under any circumstances allowed to be an intentional aggressor when you speak to a private citizen.

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

  Hide contents

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. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

 

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.   

The Amendment states the freedoms your are afforded as unassailable by the government or Congress.

 

Take a look at the Fighting Words and Defamation links. You are not under any circumstances allowed to be an intentional aggressor when you speak to a private citizen.

I'm already aware so many argue it means or relates only to the government/congress, I'm arguing against it. Believe it or not, I have seen this discussion some times before on this forum with many of the same links.

 

I'm going off of the source and the grammar issued to us. I'm saying that the grammar used is specific in its intention for a reason, regardless of what some yahoos would want it to mean. And a free country and true liberty would not mean restricting people's right to speech to the corruption of a power. It makes no sense with the context, grammar and intentions of our founding fathers for it to mean this.

[ttam]

6 hours ago, Albatross said:

They've been blaming their problems on people like us for 8 years. I've learned to tune out their ignorance.

 

Just because you like what he did doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. Get your head out of the sand and back into reality.

 

And it wasn't a "joke". He got pissed off because some people were saying "fuck u/Spez" or called him a pedophile protector (the fuck spez thing was a joke mostly, so who is the pussy now?).  Regardless even if it was a "joke" it does not make it okay, but what else can be expected of anti-Trump people? They're pathetically shallow when it comes to their values/beliefs and have no qualms for the rights, freedoms [etc] of other people simply because they oppose the accepted "narrative".

 

This is also ignoring the fact that reddit comments have gotten people charged with crimes or in trouble, but hey, you hate these people so impersonating them to incite wars is just a-o-kay! /s 

 

 

I bet you never even go to that subreddit. I do to read Trump related news all the time. They aren't all "vile disgusting people who spew hate". There are Muslims, Latinos, women, blacks, gays etc all on that subreddit that are only ever welcomed and loved (even if they aren't Trump supporters) and if you go to Twitter and check out their hashtag, you will see even more. The worst they do is shitpost and get it on r/all but that's only because Spez and the entire staff of the site is against them and they just want to fuck with people for treating them all like shit because of a few racists that unfortunately go into their ranks. But you read something on MSM or on your preferred echo chamber of a media site or subreddit/etc and you believe it because it confirms your bias.

 

I find it disgusting you are so easily able to condemn 300,000+ people on the actions of a very small minority and ignore the mass mistreatment of them. This is why Trump won (twice now). Most sane people are sick of this disgusting behavior and wish for it to change.

 

EDIT

 

Could anyone imagine what conservatives would get if they condemned an entire subreddit off of the actions of a minority? If a conservative CEO of a site like reddit had done something like this to leftist members?

 

People would lose their shit, that's what would happen.

Sorry but ur 'tarded

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, ttam said:

Sorry but ur 'tarded

 

Thanks for revealing the core of your character.