Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

There is an interesting dilemma if someone with a loud voice is spreading misinformation and the right of "Society" to have some control over it.  We do already have restrictions on free speech, it's not an absolute right.  And of course speech in any private forum can be controlled as deemed necessary by the owners.  So, should "we" counter hypothetical misinformation that is clearly damaging to larger societal interests?

Lol, yeah no. This is just a stupid post. There is no arbiter of truth. The state, pharmaceutical companies, and corporate media are certainly NOT arbiters of truth.

Free speech/first amendment is an absolute right. And it applies to EVERYONE, not just journalists. The only time speech can be considered a crime is when it incites crimes or violence. In the civil courts there is slander/libel.

Other than that- LITERALLY EVERYTHING is fair game when it comes to freedom of speech/freedom of expression. PERIOD.

Free speech quite clearly is a limited right, there are many examples of this in the law.

Free speech quite clearly is a limited right, there are many examples of this in the law.

Lol. Maybe in the UK or other European countries.

In the US it’s almost an UNLIMITED right.

There are very narrow limited instances where the right doesn’t apply- which I just gave you. Inciting violence or threats of violence and death- and knowingly writing false things about people or knowing saying false things about people- libel & slander. And that’s it. Those are literally the only limits. 

Other than that, it’s fair game. 

And all centers around your definition of “misinformation“

Who gets to decide?  If it’s the party in power and all of their supporters then that becomes an obvious problem doesn’t it now?  And who stops them from spreading miss information, which is an every day occurrence?

Well put. I have friends who argue for some ways to cap “misinformation,” but in the end, they’d be pretty unhappy if someone with a much different outlook had the wheel.

If we feel there’s something wrong out there, we can try to shout it down. Companies can do what they like. 

And of course, many people who stand tall on the barricade for their side’s free speech are often quick to ignore the free speech interests of others. Nowadays a lot of that takes place in the legal system. Laws and lawsuits designed to allow to sue based in content, which creates incentive to bleed speakers financially until it’s not worth the hassle of speaking freely. Interesting times, these.

There is an interesting dilemma if someone with a loud voice is spreading misinformation and the right of "Society" to have some control over it.  We do already have restrictions on free speech, it's not an absolute right.  And of course speech in any private forum can be controlled as deemed necessary by the owners.  So, should "we" counter hypothetical misinformation that is clearly damaging to larger societal interests?

The restrictions we have in this country on free speech are almost nil. 

• There's the oft-quoted (but largely misunderstood) "shouting fire in a crowded theater". 
• There's the "fighting words / incitement" case where words lead directly to violence, but it's EXTREMELY narrowly interpreted in jurisprudence terms.
• There's recourse for defamation, i.e. falsehoods intended to harm another person's personal or business interests. Note that I clearly say "falsehoods"--truth is always an ironclad legal defense to a defamation suit.
• There are restrictions in a commercial setting on making fraudulent claims in the advertisement of a product. 

But as HB points out, we don't have limitations on "someone with a loud voice spreading misinformation". Because the correct response to correcting misinformation is more speech countering the misinformation, not restriction on speech. Otherwise you get into a case where the government has the right to decide what is real information and what is misinformation, and that's going to end badly. 

Obviously the private forum, such as Spotify, is a completely different matter. The owners have the power there. The means of disseminating speech are, in those cases, private, and you cannot compel a private owner to host speech that they don't want to. 


The right to free speech doesn't mean that anyone has to print it, that the radio/TV has to give you airtime, etc. 

The "cure" on misinformation could be worse than the disease.  I don't even know what a cure could comprise, but I do think some are able to purvey misinformation which is quite harmful to the public interest.

if you're so worried about misinformation than you should want to shut down CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Fox News, and WaPo.

The "establishment/legacy/mainstream media" - whatever you want to call it - has been the single largest purveyor of misinformation this side of the US gov't.

Where are those WMD's in Iraq? Still waiting on them.....

Almost nil is not nil, and the restrictions are because of the public interest.  You also can't threaten a President obviously and there are limits on obscenities.  Speech showing a clear intent to discriminate or sexually harass is barred.

I just posted the question as to where the line should be drawn, and how. 

I don't know the answer to that.

6 Surprising Exceptions to Freedom of Speech | The Saturday Evening Post

jesus christ. stop. just stop. it's basically nil.

and H.R.347 isn't constitutional - at all - and it'll probably get challenged in the supreme court one day and it'll get struck down. give it time. it's only been a law for 9 years. not surprising it was the piece of shit "constitutional law professor" who had a nobel peace prize and a kill list, who took us from 2 wars to 7, who went on the assault and went after whistle-blowers and journalists like never before seen- who prosecuted more whistleblowers under the espionage act than every previous president combined- that signed that piece of shit law into existence.