Communicaation

Communication

We live in a world of interactive communication. Freedom of speech is one of our great liberties. In this world of instant communication, there is a tremendous amount of material very useful and educational. It is also a world of careless, mindless, insensitive, and mean-spirited jabs. I have no problem with one’s opinion, even when if it is opposite of my own. However, every opinion should be based on the facts and truth as one sees it. As opinions are stated, they immediately become subject to judgment. Judgment of any opinion should be judged in light of facts and truth. When communication involves more than one opinion that is how ideas become solutions to our problems.

Internet communication is an empowering force for democracy, and it enhances and invigorates our democracy. However, regulation happening today is damaging to free speech, stifles innovation and suppresses opinions of the minority. The Internet reaches large audiences at a low price, allowing the “little man” to compete. I hope all forms of communication can be kept civil, informative and considerate. What we say and how we say it can have consequences, like losing friend or even an occupation. I must say I don't have many of the answers for the problems of today, and often I have been mislead, but I do respect civil and well-meaning comments of my fellow posters.

Bonefish

Exactly! Cancel culture twitter suspended a poor dog. It’s not like the dog was even using racist phrases like coca cola uses (be less white).

I’m not scared. I will call out the dumbasses and ignorance. You can sing kumbaya with the turtle.

[QUOTE=Bonefish;580767]Communication

We live in a world of interactive communication. Freedom of speech is one of our great liberties. In this world of instant communication, there is a tremendous amount of material very useful and educational. It is also a world of careless, mindless, insensitive, and mean-spirited jabs. I have no problem with one’s opinion, even when if it is opposite of my own. However, every opinion should be based on the facts and truth as one sees it. As opinions are stated, they immediately become subject to judgment. Judgment of any opinion should be judged in light of facts and truth. When communication involves more than one opinion that is how ideas become solutions to our problems.

Internet communication is an empowering force for democracy, and it enhances and invigorates our democracy. However, regulation happening today is damaging to free speech, stifles innovation and suppresses opinions of the minority. The Internet reaches large audiences at a low price, allowing the “little man” to compete. I hope all forms of communication can be kept civil, informative and considerate. What we say and how we say it can have consequences, like losing friend or even an occupation. I must say I don't have many of the answers for the problems of today, and often I have been mislead, but I do respect civil and well-meaning comments of my fellow posters.

Bonefish[/QUOTE]

The Cancel Culture is slowly catching Leftists too. Soon, I believe it will slow down.

It is definitely not good for our whole ideology of freedom of speech.

I actually think the Supreme Court should re address New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, with regards to slander and Malice, and try to right the ******** problem THEY CREATED.

In a news print world, that might have been fine and dandy, but in a social media world......I don't believe it works.

Make it illegal to slander again, and I believe a whole lot of stupid **** goes away.

later,

Geo


BTW, I know a whole lot of people won't follow links which is why I didn't post any, but if you paste [B]New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[/B] into a browser, you will find the wiki page, and I believe that is effective enough to convey the issue.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;580773]The Cancel Culture is slowly catching Leftists too. Soon, I believe it will slow down.

It is definitely not good for our whole ideology of freedom of speech.

I actually think the Supreme Court should re address New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, with regards to slander and Malice, and try to right the ******** problem THEY CREATED.

In a news print world, that might have been fine and dandy, but in a social media world......I don't believe it works.

Make it illegal to slander again, and I believe a whole lot of stupid **** goes away.

later,

Geo


BTW, I know a whole lot of people won't follow links which is why I didn't post any, but if you paste [B]New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[/B] into a browser, you will find the wiki page, and I believe that is effective enough to convey the issue.[/QUOTE]

In NYT v. Sullivan, an Alabama state official (Sullivan) sued the Times because they published a list of people who donated to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legal defense. They didn't publish Sullivan's name, but they published the names of some people who worked for him. Sullivan sued, saying that act reflected badly on his name. Got awarded a half mil in an AL court. S. Court reversed that and said that the standard for libel was publishing something knowingly false, or publishing something false and not doing due diligence to determine whether it was true or false.

So Sullivan should've been awarded libel damages for an ad that didn't even mention him?

[QUOTE=jcb;580774]In NYT v. Sullivan, an Alabama state official (Sullivan) sued the Times because they published a list of people who donated to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legal defense. They didn't publish Sullivan's name, but they published the names of some people who worked for him. Sullivan sued, saying that act reflected badly on his name. Got awarded a half mil in an AL court. S. Court reversed that and said that the standard for libel was publishing something knowingly false, or publishing something false and not doing due diligence to determine whether it was true or false.

So Sullivan should've been awarded libel damages for an ad that didn't even mention him?[/QUOTE]

read a little further.

[I]Specifically, it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true[/I]


That is the part that allows people to say WHATEVER the eff they want to without any repercussions.

And the public official is now has become "anyone in the public eye". AND actor, a sports personality, a twitter personality..........whoever.

I would go a little further, and say if you deliberately slander or defame someone and they sue you in court, YOU should be liable for their court costs.

If someone on FB calls me a rapist or a murderer or a child molester, and I sue their ASS.......IT may cost me tens of thousands of dollars, and they get a slap on the hand. THEY should be liable for my legal costs.

That would stop the ****......Right quick, IMHO.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;580775]read a little further.

[I]Specifically, it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true[/I]


That is the part that allows people to say WHATEVER the eff they want to without any repercussions.

And the public official is now has become "anyone in the public eye". AND actor, a sports personality, a twitter personality..........whoever.

I would go a little further, and say if you deliberately slander or defame someone and they sue you in court, YOU should be liable for their court costs.

If someone on FB calls me a rapist or a murderer or a child molester, and I sue their ASS.......IT may cost me tens of thousands of dollars, and they get a slap on the hand. THEY should be liable for my legal costs.

That would stop the ****......Right quick, IMHO.[/QUOTE]

"he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true"

This is exactly what I said:

"S. Court reversed that and said that the standard for libel was publishing something knowingly false, or publishing something false and not doing due diligence to determine whether it was true or false."

[QUOTE=jcb;580776]"he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true"

This is exactly what I said:

"S. Court reversed that and said that the standard for libel was publishing something knowingly false, or publishing something false and not doing due diligence to determine whether it was true or false."[/QUOTE]

I get what you're saying, but the court basically codified slander, and made it **** near impossible to prove it in a court of law, which is WHY people get away with slanderous and libel conversations in our new social media world.

I believe it needs to be modified to fit the new models of communication, that is all I'm saying.

[QUOTE=Bonefish;580767]Communication

We live in a world of interactive communication. Freedom of speech is one of our great liberties. In this world of instant communication, there is a tremendous amount of material very useful and educational. It is also a world of careless, mindless, insensitive, and mean-spirited jabs. I have no problem with one’s opinion, even when if it is opposite of my own. However, every opinion should be based on the facts and truth as one sees it. As opinions are stated, they immediately become subject to judgment. Judgment of any opinion should be judged in light of facts and truth. When communication involves more than one opinion that is how ideas become solutions to our problems.

Internet communication is an empowering force for democracy, and it enhances and invigorates our democracy. However, regulation happening today is damaging to free speech, stifles innovation and suppresses opinions of the minority. The Internet reaches large audiences at a low price, allowing the “little man” to compete. I hope all forms of communication can be kept civil, informative and considerate. What we say and how we say it can have consequences, like losing friend or even an occupation. I must say I don't have many of the answers for the problems of today, and often I have been mislead, but I do respect civil and well-meaning comments of my fellow posters.

Bonefish[/QUOTE]

The opinion is what you think you see. If you are feed garbage all day long by Fox News and other right-wing radical media opinion outlets then do tells that what you think is the truth is the actual truth when you are feed garbage all day long. Most of the evening shows on Fox are just opinions without basic truth or facts. These shows are for entertainment, not news or facts. Remember that when you turn the dial to Fox or Newsmax.