Free speech in the age of amplified opinions

[antaeus]

A small side comment from me.

The first and foremost and most fundamental right of any human is the right to discriminate. The term "discriminate" is not inherently negative, it is neutral, it simply is the capacity for an individual to enact preferences, to refuse or embrace options. The right to discriminate can be exercised towards anything, such as a choice of companions, opinions, professional choices, etc.

That right is exercised in both ways. You may state an opinion, no matter how unusual or adversarial it may be. Can there be consequences for stating an opinion? Yes, but censoring, persecution, "cancelling" someone, or violence aren't acceptable. The range of acceptable consequences must respect another's autonomy and the possibility of the party who heard such an opinion to also discriminate in return, or in other words, to outright refuse another's opinion, wish to have nothing to do with them, and/or protest against another's opinion but without denying the fundamental right of other party to express themselves.

The current narrative from the left, sjw, socialists, fascists, and totalitarians in general, when saying "freedom of speech shouldn't shield people from the consequences" in actuality is just a indirect way to justify violence against someone they disagree with. When they use the word "consequences" they in actuality are trying to excuse the use of violence and coercion against those who profess opinions that stand in opposition to them. It's a subversive narrative. Only discrimination is acceptable between disagreeing groups, since this procedure does not compromise the autonomy and the reciprocal right to discriminate from the other party.

In truth, when the left uses the reasoning "freedom of speech shouldn't shield people from the consequences" in order to justify their narrative, it is their hope that a preemptive self-censorious mentality takes hold of other people's mind, or in other words, people police themselves out of fear, fear has taken control of them, fear of the violent repercussions from totalitarians, these repercussions can range from bodily harm, destroying someone professionally and financially, and thus indirectly deny them their right to live and eventually perish under a bridge, with no way to survive, impoverished. And through these methods they reach their objective of killing/eliminating their adversaries, but indirectly, and without necessitating to be open and honest about it, which would been seen as unacceptable in any free society, and these totalitarians know it.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”


― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

(edited for grammar corrections)

Apart from using my personal opinions as a straw man for what you don't like about "the left" - which is odd, because I am out of sync with a lot of what "the left" tend to propose, and I tend to be more in line with libertarians when it comes to one's right to verbalise their opinions. You have an axe to grind, so I guess someone has to be the whetstone. *shrug* I guess it's ironic that you are quoting G.R.R. Martin, as his politics also trend left.

I'm interested in this part of what you say: "Can there be consequences for stating an opinion? Yes". Because the rest of your post seems to suggest that you don't actually like any consequences where they have been put forward. So let's test this perspective: What sort of consequences do you think there should be for someone who vocally advocates for something that impacts on the human rights of another? Should these consequences have legal standing?

[numerosdecimus]

Apart from using my personal opinions as a straw man for what you don't like about "the left" - which is odd, because I am out of sync with a lot of what "the left" tend to propose, and I tend to be more in line with libertarians when it comes to one's right to verbalise their opinions. You have an axe to grind, so I guess someone has to be the whetstone. *shrug* I guess it's ironic that you are quoting G.R.R. Martin, as his politics also trend left.

Spare me the arbitrary use of the term "straw man". If you didn't like by opinion just say it directly, instead of throwing a curve ball. Second, I did not give any opinion towards anything in your opening post, I merely exposed my opinion concerning the concept of consequences towards speech.

The term "left" is a simplification. The true contrast in political theory is between liberty and state dominance. If you tend towards a libertarian mindset, then I assume you're aware of the N.A.P. (non agression principle).

The means the "left" (totalitarians) use to counter the opinions they don't like, openly violate the N.A.P.. As a consequence, the only acceptable act that can be taken towards an opinion that is not shared is discrimination. Wether GRRM is left or not is irrelevant to me. The terms left and right are very imprecise by nature. What matters to me is what people say and the direct implication what come with those statements.

I'm interested in this part of what you say: "Can there be consequences for stating an opinion? Yes". Because the rest of your post seems to suggest that you don't actually like any consequences where they have been put forward.

It's not about liking anything. It's about methods. The ends are defined by the means. If among the used methods when dealing with opinions that aren't shared is violence, political persecution, then those are not acceptable and are a violation of the N.A.P.

So let's test this perspective: What sort of consequences do you think there should be for someone who vocally advocates for something that impacts on the human rights of another? Should these consequences have legal standing?

Discrimination is the answer, voluntary acceptance. And no, there absolutely can not be political and legal consequences for speech, otherwise you open a pandora's box, where the state gains the legal power to persecute at their discretion, which eventually they will direct it to anyone at their convenience, this has been shown repeatedly through history, especially in the 20th century. The founding fathers of the USA knew of this, and that's why they created the first amendment.

Speech does not impact human rights of another. Actions do. Tyrannies have always used this reasoning to promote and justify political persecution.

Take for instance the intersectionality/lgbtq+ narrative, where "words are violence". They claim using the wrong pronouns is an act of violence and a violation of human rights. First of all, to claim such a thing would imply that the other party would have to be forced to act and say in accordance with the design of the lgbtq+, and it is the other party, ironically, who would have their human rights violated through coercion. It is within the other party right's to refuse to use the pronouns the lgbtq+ lobby wants to force on others. Ultimately, the objective of forcing speech practices through pronouns is an exercise in domination and power by the lgbtq+ lobby, who are essentially closet totalitarians (or at least useful tools for totalitarian powers).

It is irrelevant if the lgbtq+ person is "assaulted" or "damaged" or has evaluated another's speech as "hate speech". First of all, the term "hate speech" is entirely subjective, and it does not say absolutely anything about the nature of the speech professed by the other, but rather the subjective and emotional reaction of the one who heard it, the "hot potato" or proof of burden so to speak is on the person who is making the accusation, and it's a subjective accusation, which does not hold in any honest court with a objective legal system. Under the lgbtq+, anything could by convenience and arbitrarily be defined at some point as "hate speech".

Take another example, holocaust denial. The holocaust happened, yet there are some people who downplay it or have a different political view. The danger comes not from those people stating their views, but in attributing the state speech laws, such as in Germany, where abuses by the state become inevitable, and the parameters of what becomes defined as acceptable speech change over time. Once you give the tools to the state, everything becomes at risk.

Take a third example, Antifa and their opinions on reshaping society. In my view their political and socio-economical view are abominable, and rest assured that if they acted the way they do now during any other time in history they would have been violently crushed by the regime or society in place and called out for the dishonest, hipocritical, and cowardly civilizational parasites that they are. Antifa and the totalitarian movement behind them wish to deny others their right to live by their own terms, and the only reason why they are able to freely roam the western countries and spread chaos and destruction is because the west is detached from its moral roots and the main principles which define the civilization.

As Aristotle once said: “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.”

However, under no circumstances must Antifa be denied their right to peacefully express their opinions, because of this primary reason:

Tyrannies and totalitarian mindsets are (such as fascism, socialism and all its variations), from a philosophical and moral standpoint, weak, and do not hold against scrutinous analysis. The proponents of these ideologies know this, and know that in open, honest, public discourse their ideals would not hold ground and be openly rejected, hence they resort to violence.

This method is objectively wrong, and must not be followed by those who believe in liberty and freedom. In fact, open discourse must be actively promoted because open discussion of ideas is the best tool towards ideologies which are arbitrary, which aim to dominate and rule over others.

The flaws in such ideologies are openly exposed, and a voluntary rejection of such ideas happens in general through out the entire society. This in turn creates a strong immune system, thanks to the fundamental moral principles practiced by such a society, against parasitic, pervasive, totalitarian mindsets.

That and the golden rule must be always followed (a heritage of Christian tradition), don’t do onto others what you don’t want to be done towards yourself. By promoting universal unrestricted free speech without political consequence, you are in turn, first and foremost, protecting yourself.

(edited. spelling mistakes)

[antaeus]

Spare me the arbitrary use of the term "straw man". If you didn't like by opinion just say it directly, instead of throwing a curve ball. Second, I did not give any opinion towards anything in your opening post, I merely exposed my opinion concerning the concept of consequences towards speech.

The term "left" is a simplification. The true contrast in political theory is between liberty and state dominance. If you tend towards a libertarian mindset, then I assume you're aware of the N.A.P. (non agression principle).

The means the "left" (totalitarians) use to counter the opinions they don't like, openly violate the N.A.P.. As a consequence, the only acceptable act that can be taken towards an opinion that is not shared is discrimination. Wether GRRM is left or not is irrelevant to me. The terms left and right are very imprecise by nature. What matters to me is what people say and the direct implication what come with those statements.



It's not about liking anything. It's about methods. The ends are defined by the means. If among the used methods when dealing with opinions that aren't shared is violence, political persecution, then those are not acceptable and are a violation of the N.A.P.



Discrimination is the answer, voluntary acceptance. And no, there absolutely can not be political and legal consequences for speech, otherwise you open a pandora's box, where the state gains the legal power to persecute at their discretion, which eventually they will direct it to anyone at their convenience, this has been shown repeatedly through history, especially in the 20th century. The founding fathers of the USA knew of this, and that's why they created the first amendment.

Speech does not impact human rights of another. Actions do. Tyrannies have always used this reasoning to promote and justify political persecution.

Take for instance the intersectionality/lgbtq+ narrative, where "words are violence". They claim using the wrong pronouns is an act of violence and a violation of human rights. First of all, to claim such a thing would imply that the other party would have to be forced to act and say in accordance with the design of the lgbtq+, and it is the other party, ironically, who would have their human rights violated through coercion. It is within the other party right's to refuse to use the pronouns the lgbtq+ lobby wants to force on others. Ultimately, the objective of forcing speech practices through pronouns is an exercise in domination and power by the lgbtq+ lobby, who are essentially closet totalitarians (or at least useful tools for totalitarian powers).

It is irrelevant if the lgbtq+ person is "assaulted" or "damaged" or has evaluated another's speech as "hate speech". First of all, the term "hate speech" is entirely subjective, and it does not say absolutely anything about the nature of the speech professed by the other, but rather the subjective and emotional reaction of the one who heard it, the "hot potato" or proof of burden so to speak is on the person who is making the accusation, and it's a subjective accusation, which does not hold in any honest court with a objective legal system. Under the lgbtq+, anything could by convenience and arbitrarily be defined at some point as "hate speech".

Take another example, holocaust denial. The holocaust happened, yet there are some people who downplay it or have a different political view. The danger comes not from those people stating their views, but in attributing the state speech laws, such as in Germany, where abuses by the state become inevitable, and the parameters of what becomes defined as acceptable speech change over time. Once you give the tools to the state, everything becomes at risk.

Take a third example, Antifa and their opinions on reshaping society. In my view their political and socio-economical view are abominable, and rest assured that if they acted the way they do now during any other time in history they would have been violently crushed by the regime or society in place and called out for the dishonest, hipocritical, and cowardly civilizational parasites that they are. Antifa and the totalitarian movement behind them wish to deny others their right to live by their own terms, and the only reason why they are able to freely roam the western countries and spread chaos and destruction is because the west is detached from its moral roots and the main principles which define the civilization.

As Aristotle once said: “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.”

However, under no circumstances must Antifa be denied their right to peacefully express their opinions, because of this primary reason:

Tyrannies and totalitarian mindsets are (such as fascism, socialism and all its variations), from a philosophical and moral standpoint, weak, and do not hold against scrutinous analysis. The proponents of these ideologies know this, and know that in open, honest, public discourse their ideals would not hold ground and be openly rejected, hence they resort to violence.

This method is objectively wrong, and must not be followed by those who believe in liberty and freedom. In fact, open discourse must be actively promoted because open discussion of ideas is the best tool towards ideologies which are arbitrary, which aim to dominate and rule over others.

The flaws in such ideologies are openly exposed, and a voluntary rejection of such ideas happens in general through out the entire society. This in turn creates a strong immune system, thanks to the fundamental moral principles practiced by such a society, against parasitic, pervasive, totalitarian mindsets.

That and the golden rule must be always followed (a heritage of Christian tradition), don’t do onto others what you don’t want to be done towards yourself. By promoting universal unrestricted free speech without political consequence, you are in turn, first and foremost, protecting yourself.

(edited. spelling mistakes)

Ok great. Again, lots of good stuff about why you don't like "the left" here. Except by "the left" you don't like totalitarians. I get that. I'm not a fan of them either.

I appreciate that you're trying to separate words and actions. But I'm not convinced that the two can be separated, as words are actions. The words we choose to speak are deliberate choices we have made to express ourselves towards others. The consequences of what you're suggesting, that the two are firmly decoupled, might for example, lead to a delegitimization of the concepts of emotional abuse, harassment or threats of violence or coercion. Is this the direction you're heading, or am I misreading you?

[numerosdecimus]

Ok great. Again, lots of good stuff about why you don't like "the left" here. Except by "the left" you don't like totalitarians. I get that. I'm not a fan of them either.

I appreciate that you're trying to separate words and actions. But I'm not convinced that the two can be separated, as words are actions. The words we choose to speak are deliberate choices we have made to express ourselves towards others. The consequences of what you're suggesting, that the two are firmly decoupled, might for example, lead to a delegitimization of the concepts of emotional abuse, harassment or threats of violence or coercion. Is this the direction you're heading, or am I misreading you?

I think you may be misreading me. However, not much more comes to my mind concerning justifying my position. I've tried to make my case as clear as possible. I hope what I wrote is at least enough to have a partial understanding of my views.

Emotional evaluation of statements, and the use of such a criteria to determine if something is legitimate or not is a very dangerous thing, politically and legally speaking, in my opinion. It's a pandora's box. My advise is just to make a legal system based as little as possible (or none at all) from such judgement criteria.

Remember, totalitarian systems thrive and depend on arbitrary legal parameters. Transparency and objective moral standards are the enemy of dishonesty and tyranny.

[antaeus]

I think you may be misreading me. However, not much more comes to my mind concerning justifying my position. I've tried to make my case as clear as possible. I hope what I wrote is at least enough to have a partial understanding of my views.

Emotional evaluation of statements, and the use of such a criteria to determine if something is legitimate or not is a very dangerous thing, politically and legally speaking, in my opinion. It's a pandora's box. My advise is just to make a legal system based as little as possible (or none at all) from such judgement criteria.

Remember, totalitarian systems thrive and depend on arbitrary legal parameters. Transparency and objective moral standards are the enemy of dishonesty and tyranny.

Forgive me for prodding a little further. Within your perspective, where do you think that things like emotional abuse, harassment, threats and coercion fall? Are they spoken words that warrant consequence?

[numerosdecimus]

Forgive me for prodding a little further. Within your perspective, where do you think that things like emotional abuse, harassment, threats and coercion fall? Are they spoken words that warrant consequence?

Emotional abuse can be solved by voluntary disengagement if true, but that's up to the person suffering to make the decision to cut ties and be autonomous. Otherwise, if someone claims that freely without substantial evidence then it's prone to be used as a tool for abuse.

Threats: Can be either ignored, or preemptive legal protection can be requested. Until the act of aggression is done, you can't harm the one doing the threat, otherwise you open a pandora's box, legally speaking.

Coercion: The term implies forcing another to do something against their will, inflicting harm. The "cancel" culture of today fall in this category for instance, applying threats to providers and to the person in question, with the implicit consequence of violence and threat to someone's life. This is unacceptable, it is shaping society according to someone's ego. The solution for this could be firm laws in which unlawful ceasing services by providers due to someone's threat would 100% unacceptable and would results in heavy compensation to the harmed party. The solution comes by removing the fear that bullies spread and making it clear, legally speaking, that appeasing to bullies at the cost of innocent people's livelihood won't be tolerated. If nothing happens after that threats are issued by the bullies, than these will eventually stop because they realize their methods are going nowhere. That and those bullies would suffer the full weight of the law if they tried something physical at all, but those people aren't stupid, no matter how totalitarian their mindset is, they know they still live in a society which protects the innocent and puts the presumption of innocence first and foremost (no matter how much the totalitarians would like to destroy this part in order to fit with their coercive political and socio-economical ideology.

(Btw: You know where I can find the option in my account to extend the time I'm logged in but inactive? I always have to login again and again after writing a long post.)

[skh1]

(Btw: You know where I can find the option in my account to extend the time I'm logged in but inactive? I always have to login again and again after writing a long post.)

Annoying, n'est-ce pas? I usually write up everything in Notepad beforehand, tossing in links to references if needed, and then log in and copy and paste.

[Love Mountain]

Provocative and/or simplistic material (much of it supplied by legacy media) attracting more attention than detailed information is an age-old problem which has inevitably materialized online. The climate of division encouraged by social media is not worse than the censorship proposed to curtail it.

The problem of free speech and polarization was discussed by Mill:



The liberal establishment rejects this reasoning (ironic given Mill’s association with liberalism), instead preferring to use the existence of polarization as an excuse to protect and further its own hegemony. For instance, when von der Leyen laments that digital media has become a “danger to democracy”*, and claims that “in a world in which polarising opinions are most likely to be heard, it is a short step from perverse conspiracy theories to the death of police officers,” what she’s really denouncing is criticism of, and organization against, the prevailing political structures and ideologies in Europe.

*An absurd accusation coming from an obscenely powerful, unelected president of five-hundred million people.

Not absurd whatsoever nor does it address the subject matter in question. Traditional media outlets are regulated, sometimes quite heavy handedly. There is a reason why you indecent material is not broadcasted on public airwaves. In comparison, Section 230 largely shields social media platforms from the consequences of hate speech, defamation, etc. The kind of stuff that can destroy a traditional media outlet. Hence why traditional media outlets will have editors and moderators. In that context, criticisms and fear of unbridled power of social media is rightfully feared. A re-examination was long overdue.

The point about the mainstream press is not “blather”. Misleading, false or conspiratorial content disseminated by CNN, The Washington Post or Fox News (all of which are shown preferential treatment by big tech) is typically more sophisticated and influential than Alex Jones’ rants. Shutting down independent/alternative creators simply restores old media’s monopoly on the national discourse without solving any of the issues relating to fake news or conspiracy theories.

There is a very clear difference in veracity between accusations of Russian interference or collusion, and Q-Anon.

[Gaidin]

Other potential solutions to the one offered above could include using antitrust legislation to break up the tech monopolies (Amazon, Google, Apple) or classifying political views as protected beliefs under the Civil Rights Act (which would have the advantage of combating cancel culture nationally).

Host your server physically in Wasthington DC. Political views are protected in the District for...what I should hope are obvious reasons.

[Muizer]

Threats: Can be either ignored, or preemptive legal protection can be requested. Until the act of aggression is done, you can't harm the one doing the threat, otherwise you open a pandora's box, legally speaking.

What about slander and defamation? Is it ok for one company to try to drive a competitor out of business by spreading lies and misinformation, for instance? Given your stance on hate speech, one would assume your answer to be 'yes'.

[Cope]

What about slander and defamation? Is it ok for one company to try to drive a competitor out of business by spreading lies and misinformation, for instance? Given your stance on hate speech, one would assume your answer to be 'yes'.

Your interlocutor is incorrect about threats. So-called "true threats" are not protected by the First Amendment, even though they are ambiguously defined. US vs. Kelner defined a true threat as one which "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.

Virginia vs. Black added that "True threats encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals...Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death."

There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment, nor should there be.

[Muizer]

I quoted that bit not so much because it concerned threats but because of the "don't impose any restrictions on speech, or you'll open pandora's box" tangent.

Where free speech is concerned, there is no way to stay off the slippery slope or out of the grey area. To pretend otherwise would be childishly naive. A bit like libertarianism in general.

In any case, what about defamation? It's not that different from hate speech, really. Should people have no legal protection from that either?

[Cope]

I quoted that bit not so much because it concerned threats but because of the "don't impose any restrictions on speech, or you'll open pandora's box" tangent.

Where free speech is concerned, there is no way to stay off the slippery slope or out of the grey area. To pretend otherwise would be childishly naive. A bit like libertarianism in general.

In any case, what about defamation? It's not that different from hate speech, really. Should people have no legal protection from that either?

Hate speech is (in theory) an expression of prejudice against a protected class which is usually abusive and may involve threats. Defamation is the act of damaging someone's reputation with a false claim(s) in a materially quantifiable way. If you think that hate speech is legally defamatory then you agree that there is no need for hate speech legislation.

[numerosdecimus]

What about slander and defamation? Is it ok for one company to try to drive a competitor out of business by spreading lies and misinformation, for instance? Given your stance on hate speech, one would assume your answer to be 'yes'.

You are correct. My answer would be "yes".

If character assassination, slander and defamation is done with the intent of harming another and one's life, then court action is legitimate. If the one being slandered and defamed knows that the truth is in his side, he/she will not hesitate in sustaining the costs associated with legal action, and would later demand a formal statement of apology, compensation for moral damages, legal costs, etc...

If the case against defamation is truthful and is a sold one, that person won't hesitate to take it to court, because he/she knows that it will be won.

Today we have mainstream media destroying the lives of private citizen based in false ill intented narratives. It is the right of the private citizen to legally defend itself and seek legal compensation and tangible consequences for the entity doing the slander.

Unfortunately, these mainstream media institutions are, for the most part, well connected and can be put in a small privileged group which thinks to be above the law.

If so, this utterly destroys the pretense of the universality and sovereignty of the law.

The USA is a republic. It is not the vote of an assembly which is supreme, like in democracies. Since it is a republic, the supreme authority comes from the law(constitutional law), hence the name RES PUBLICA = "The public thing" = The law.

[antaeus]

You are correct. My answer would be "yes".

If character assassination, slander and defamation is done with the intent of harming another and one's life, then court action is legitimate. If the one being slandered and defamed knows that the truth is in his side, he/she will not hesitate in sustaining the costs associated with legal action, and would later demand a formal statement of apology, compensation for moral damages, legal costs, etc...

If the case against defamation is truthful and is a sold one, that person won't hesitate to take it to court, because he/she knows that it will be won.

Today we have mainstream media destroying the lives of private citizen based in false ill intented narratives. It is the right of the private citizen to legally defend itself and seek legal compensation and tangible consequences for the entity doing the slander.

Unfortunately, these mainstream media institutions are, for the most part, well connected and can be put in a small privileged group which thinks to be above the law.

If so, this utterly destroys the pretense of the universality and sovereignty of the law.

The USA is a republic. It is not the vote of an assembly which is supreme, like in democracies. Since it is a republic, the supreme authority comes from the law(constitutional law), hence the name RES PUBLICA = "The public thing" = The law.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. We're being a little weasel with our words.

I'm still a bit hazy about what exactly you mean by mainstream media destroying lives and how that relates to the nature of what a republic is - I'm not sure there needs to be a connection painted there.

Do you think you could give us some instances where someone has been destroyed by mainstream media based on a false narrative and in particular, examples of how this is a specifically mainstream media phenomena? I would suggest that non-mainstream media who aren't trying to appeal to a large audience, are more likely to indulge in un-evidenced character assassination - as they have a much more limited audience with less oversight who already agree with what they are selling. Certainly as has been discussed, the media has an issue with vested interest - every news organisation has a board and answers to some sort of profit model. But I really struggle with this "mainstream vs non mainstream" narrative being woven here, as if organisations with greater checks and balances are more problematic than organisations with fewer.

[Gaidin]

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. We're being a little weasel with our words.

I'm still a bit hazy about what exactly you mean by mainstream media destroying lives and how that relates to the nature of what a republic is - I'm not sure there needs to be a connection painted there.

Do you think you could give us some instances where someone has been destroyed by mainstream media based on a false narrative and in particular, examples of how this is a specifically mainstream media phenomena?

I would suggest adding a word. Defamation and slander has to be a knowingly false narrative.

If one speaks what one knows at the time but happens to be wrong...

[numerosdecimus]

I'm still a bit hazy about what exactly you mean by mainstream media destroying lives and how that relates to the nature of what a republic is - I'm not sure there needs to be a connection painted there.

Do you remember the Nick Sandman case? His case is not unique, and more have had their lives and future prospects destroyed through lies spread by the mainstream media. Hopefully, the nick Sandman case creates a precedent, where the mainstream, elite backed media can't freely engage in character assassination, since there will be legal and monetary consequences, because the rule of law is still supreme(no matter how much the despotic global elites would like to end it).

Do you think you could give us some instances where someone has been destroyed by mainstream media based on a false narrative and in particular, examples of how this is a specifically mainstream media phenomena? I would suggest that non-mainstream media who aren't trying to appeal to a large audience, are more likely to indulge in un-evidenced character assassination - as they have a much more limited audience with less oversight who already agree with what they are selling. Certainly as has been discussed, the media has an issue with vested interest - every news organisation has a board and answers to some sort of profit model. But I really struggle with this "mainstream vs non mainstream" narrative being woven here, as if organisations with greater checks and balances are more problematic than organisations with fewer.

With what I've seen so far, I would confidently say there is a difference between mainstream and non mainstream media. The narratives are different, the methods of investigation are different(investigation journalism is currently only done by the non mainstream).

Should a non mainstream publication or journalist make a genuine mistake, then yes there would be legal consequences, however, they know this, and their standards concerning the level of scrutiny and detail check are much higher than those applied i nthe mainstream media (and in many cases the mainstream media is even devoid of quality standards or any kind of detail check).

In my opinion, the institutions that compose the mainstream media, are currently running of reputation or social capital, gained from previous times when they were relatively reliable. As they are today, they serve no constructive purpose and may even be irredeemably compromised by the interest who fund them.

I would say that the future of journalism and reliable media will come (with varying degree of reliability) from decentralized low scale institutions and individual journalists. Our current technologies allow for a single person with very little infrastructure to reliably provide a substantial audience with detailed and hopefully reliable content.

The mainstream media right now, in my opinion, are outdated and are part of the past. But they will not allow themselves to quietly die. I fear they may burn everything around them if they resign to the fact that they won't survive as they are now.

[antaeus]

Do you remember the Nick Sandman case? His case is not unique, and more have had their lives and future prospects destroyed through lies spread by the mainstream media. Hopefully, the nick Sandman case creates a precedent, where the mainstream, elite backed media can't freely engage in character assassination, since there will be legal and monetary consequences, because the rule of law is still supreme(no matter how much the despotic global elites would like to end it).



With what I've seen so far, I would confidently say there is a difference between mainstream and non mainstream media. The narratives are different, the methods of investigation are different(investigation journalism is currently only done by the non mainstream).

Should a non mainstream publication or journalist make a genuine mistake, then yes there would be legal consequences, however, they know this, and their standards concerning the level of scrutiny and detail check are much higher than those applied i nthe mainstream media (and in many cases the mainstream media is even devoid of quality standards or any kind of detail check).

In my opinion, the institutions that compose the mainstream media, are currently running of reputation or social capital, gained from previous times when they were relatively reliable. As they are today, they serve no constructive purpose and may even be irredeemably compromised by the interest who fund them.

I would say that the future of journalism and reliable media will come (with varying degree of reliability) from decentralized low scale institutions and individual journalists. Our current technologies allow for a single person with very little infrastructure to reliably provide a substantial audience with detailed and hopefully reliable content.

The mainstream media right now, in my opinion, are outdated and are part of the past. But they will not allow themselves to quietly die. I fear they may burn everything around them if they resign to the fact that they won't survive as they are now.

Can you give me an example of the non-mainstream media organisations that you think are more reliable?

[Cope]

Can you give me an example of the non-mainstream media organisations that you think are more reliable?

Why, the Total War Center of course!

[Muizer]

You are correct. My answer would be "yes".

If character assassination, slander and defamation is done with the intent of harming another and one's life, then court action is legitimate. If the one being slandered and defamed knows that the truth is in his side, he/she will not hesitate in sustaining the costs associated with legal action, and would later demand a formal statement of apology, compensation for moral damages, legal costs, etc... If the case against defamation is truthful and is a sold one, that person won't hesitate to take it to court, because he/she knows that it will be won.

Hmm, you say "yes" but what follows sounds like "no", because you do believe that those subject to defamation (and hate speech) have recourse to the law, and that culpability does not come from the consequences, but from the intended consequences.

Today we have mainstream media destroying the lives of private citizen based in false ill intented narratives.

I'll start taking complaints about mainstream media seriously, when they come from sources with at least the same level of accountability and public scrutiny. As poor as they are at times (no question about that), their detractors are usually far worse.

It is the right of the private citizen to legally defend itself and seek legal compensation and tangible consequences for the entity doing the slander. Unfortunately, these mainstream media institutions are, for the most part, well connected and can be put in a small privileged group which thinks to be above the law. If so, this utterly destroys the pretense of the universality and sovereignty of the law.The USA is a republic. It is not the vote of an assembly which is supreme, like in democracies. Since it is a republic, the supreme authority comes from the law(constitutional law), hence the name RES PUBLICA = "The public thing" = The law.

I am glad you realize there is no point in having a right if there's no power to enforce it on your behalf. How to organize that power has to be an integral part of any political ideology. Ideologies that focus heavily on curtailing state power tend to overlook the need, and the means to curtail private power, which is no less capable of making a mockery of the law.