Freedom of Speech

Its a difficult subject , as Jedi we are not supposed to take sides ,that is why my political statements are limited to my private realm. its one thing to speak out against something , its another thing to chastise other peoples opinions and to push our opinion down other peoples throats as is so hip on facebook these days. I expect Knights to be Knights in action. Its how we take care of others , how we conduct ourselves in open space and in public that determines how people see us. I cannot for the love of God take a side as a Jedi. I can only say that however stupid and bias someones opinion is , i will fight for everyones right to make a complete arse of themselves on the internet. Free speech is the right to exchange information and ideas in a uninterupted flow. When you limit Freedom of Speech it seizes to exsist. When people harm others , i will take side against the Harm it does, i will try to put myself in a position of gentle persuation , not of persecution. When someone is talking out of their arse i will send them a pm to inquire if what they are saying is Jedi in their eyes. But as i said , its a difficult matter , i am not exactly known for my tact in certain matters and people have been very patient with me , so i give back , the love and understanding i once recieved and hope people come to their senses

Jäger wrote: Freedom of Speech is the cornerstone of most, if not all, free and democratic societies. The ability for anyone and everyone to criticize anything, especially the government, without fear of retalitation and retribution is essential to safeguarding freedom.

This is a common misconception about freedom of speech and the First Amendment. The First Amendment only applies to the government. It protects us as citizens from being silenced by the government (laws or incarceration) or other publicly owned institutions for sharing opinions. This does not mean we have the ability to criticize anything we want without fear of retaliation or retribution, particularly private entities or enterprises. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google, etc are privately owned companies that have every right to censor the content on their platforms. They can ban whomever they choose for any reason so long as it is in their Terms of Use and Site Rules. Alex Jones violated those rules, so he was de-platformed by those services. We have that same power here on our website to censor or ban anyone who violates our rules regardless of the First Amendment.

The same applies to other private organizations. My employer can fire me for publicly voicing opinions that are contrary to the companies mission or image. We see it happen all the time. Disney fired James Gunn and ABC fired Roseanne. Neo-Nazis get fired when they are recognized at protests. We have the ability to say whatever we want, but unless it is about the government or other publicly owned institution, the First Amendment offers no protection. We will face the consequences for that speech.

Not really able to claim with a straight face that one has been discriminated against if the action was for breaching the terms of service (ToS). It's just a simple disconnect in causation there AFAIK. So for example, Facebook seems to use the language to disallow "unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent." and that "infringes or breaches someone else's rights" in their ToS. Do that bad enough and your out of Facebook no matter your views, gender, race etc.

A big problem with society these days is the willingness and in some cases outright inability for people to take responsibility for when they do the wrong thing. That sort of person really seeks out 'comfortable' and 'convenient' narratives to align with, usually because their simple and don't confuse their own artificial protective narratives too much. Reality is dirty, nature is complex.

So it appears some folks take advantage of that, by recasting events away from accuracy and truth, and turning them into something convenient or useful IMO is manipulation of self and/or others. I'm not a fan of that personally.

So it's all just spin from where I'm sitting, at least at the level of individual or group agitator.
Unless they didn't break the ToS..... or
Unless its widespread and not uniformly applied.

When I say uniformly I don't mean universally, but rather consistently equivalent. As I have the view that rules are usually best applied to egregious or repeated breaches - rather then all instances of breach in my experience.
The problem with that, while ideal IMO, is that it creates room for subjective bias to feed an apparent distortion in application, which of course is the perfect petri dish for that agitator type character or group to manipulate and breed an conflicting narrative where they recast their own role as victim or saviour.

Real freedom of speech does not mean freedom from rules IMO, otherwise its just a case of whomever has the loudest voice wins. I'm not sure I equate natural law to the law of the jungle, as that to me is instead natural lawlessness. So the foundation has to be those bounding concepts like not being unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent. These things reflect the law to some extent but dont have to match it perfectly I don't think. And other concepts like transparency are vital as well, but the extent of that has to be realistic in that it cannot be all reaching and openly accessible, rather functional and effective in the context of social order. The other concepts start to relate more directly to the law I'd guess as they interface with policy in shaping growth and stability of that society.

But I've probably gone off on a tangent, as I'd like to reckon the CIA probably funds things like Facebook anyway, since they are not new or novel ideas but rather well funded and properly timed ventures..... but then all successful business is about that, so who knows, the rich get richer and the poor waste time with conspiracies and celebrities.

So yea, first thing I'd look for is are people being discriminated against (which means no other sufficient reason can exist), or is one side being allowed to get away with the same thing.
If it is, first step might be to aggregate examples as an accessible resource, for from there new platforms can function as alternatives to that 'abuse', and wider change can gain momentum. Funny thing was, back in my day these sorts of solutions were where platforms like these came from, to get out from under the old out of date systems. Not that it wasn't without isolated benefit for some, but the only thing sure about nature is its always changing... and the higher the density the faster the change. Can I blame over-population?

Many things I would have said have already been mentioned. So I'll look at it from more of a legal standing.

ToS is specific and has to be spelled out prior to the agreement. Most places have a very objective ToS agreement with only a few things that could be subjective. (here at MOoK we have objective rules but out law states that they will be interpreted subjectively)

Did Alex Jones violte the ToS? I don't know. I do know he says some pretty aweful stuff. But he is what the industry calls a shock jock and it should be expected.
Facebook is a platform for community sharing, not unlike a phone company. This allows them to let content be posted without verifying the validity of it. IE, not edited. If they did start editing posts based on content Then they would fall under a publisher. As long as said content does not violate the ToS. So, if Alex Jones was kicked for content that, vial as it may be, did not violate the ToS, then he could sue. And so could everyone else that finds inaccurate or unlawful content.

It's tricky because Facebook is a open platform. They do have a ToS that all parties agree to abide by. But if they start editing based on content preference then they can become a publisher and would then be resoncible and accountable for all content.

All that said, anyone can find hate groups that support violence and parrot mis-truths that are still active in Facebook and not in danger of. Being shut down. And because of so many conservative or members post a that will show conservative talking points even though they are hosted by librals, being demonotized or kicked off... It makes me wonder if there are connections that should cause alarm or concern.