Is Free Speach Under Attack?

[Nehemiah6]

Just so that I am clear, do you think the independent platforms offering community forums have the responsibility to allow all speech even though it may be highly controversial?

I believe any Christian forum should not allow attacks on the deity of Christ or on the Holy Trinity. Other than that people may freely post their errors and be refuted by others.

 

[SteveEpperson]

atheists acting as trolls in that forum.

Okay, so I understand banning atheists.

Not to get off track, but have you ever been to an atheist forum? It's eye-popping! And they are extremely vitriolic, even toward each other.

One day, I wanted to see what would happen if I got on and said, "I hope God grants all of you favor, and I hope you have a blessed day."

As you can expect, I got called a few names. But there were no F-bombs dropped on me. And to my amazement, I wasn't banned from the site.

I find it interesting how atheists can tolerate Christians, yet we Christians are not willing to allow free speech to an atheist.

I get why. If you've ever tried to debate an atheist, you may as well talk to a wall. You're automatically disqualified because you're a Christian!

But should we be so lazy as to completely de-platform anyone who disagrees with us?

 

[ZNP]

Okay, so I understand banning atheists.

Not to get off track, but have you ever been to an atheist forum? It's eye-popping! And they are extremely vitriolic, even toward each other.

One day, I wanted to see what would happen if I got on and said, "I hope God grants all of you favor, and I hope you have a blessed day."

As you can expect, I got called a few names. But there were no F-bombs dropped on me. And to my amazement, I wasn't banned from the site.

I find it interesting how atheists can tolerate Christians, yet we Christians are not willing to allow free speech to an atheist.

I get why. If you've ever tried to debate an atheist, you may as well talk to a wall. You're automatically disqualified because you're a Christian!

But should we be so lazy as to completely de-platform anyone who disagrees with us?

I was on a Christian forum, they split it into two parts, one part is for all faiths including atheists, the other part is for Christians.

However, I got suspended for 30 days so I left. The Lord says if they don't welcome you in this town brush off the dust and go to the next town.

To me it is like Peter says, don't let any of you suffer as a sinner, but if you suffer for the name of the Lord rejoice.

 

[SteveEpperson]

I don't think free speech is an "anytime, anyplace" thing. I've heard people assert that free speech means you have a "right to be heard" which to me is nonsense. People can talk all they want, but nobody has to listen. Your free speech has to be compelling enough to get people to listen.

Okay, so you're talking about verbal communication. And I agree with you. If a pastor in a church says something contrary to the Gospel, I'm outa there before you've noticed I'm gone.

But I'm talking more about the written word.

I read the rest of your reply, and you seem to side with people who say that we should let the free-enterprise system work. Don't force Facebook and Twitter to accept all posts. After all, you don't have to use these platforms and there are more being developed every day.

But isn't all this just creating more division? Should there be platforms only for people who agree with you? Wouldn't that get a little stale and boring?

 

[SomeDisciple]

Okay, so you're talking about verbal communication. And I agree with you. If a pastor in a church says something contrary to the Gospel, I'm outa there before you've noticed I'm gone.

But I'm talking more about the written word.

I read the rest of your reply, and you seem to side with people who say that we should let the free-enterprise system work. Don't force Facebook and Twitter to accept all posts. After all, you don't have to use these platforms and there are more being developed every day.

But isn't all this just creating more division? Should there be platforms only for people who agree with you? Wouldn't that get a little stale and boring?

It depends. Let's look at something like christian chat. If everyone in the world had a CC account, they could easily spam the forums with garbage and make it impractical for Christian's to communicate about christian stuff.

Do I think FB and Twitter should be bias? No, because they didnt start out that way. It was basically forums for people to connect online. But, who am I if they want to alter their platform.

I think some platforms serve one purpose and another platform serves another.

 

[mindfulzen]

What have they done that you disagree with? That is an extremely broad category. Are they instigating people to commit an atrocity? Are you talking about Hitler screaming about the Jews being responsible for all evils and needing to die? Can you be a little more specific?

Also what do you mean by silenced? Are they being censored or simply ignored?

Also where is this? Is some satanist demanding to speak during a church service? We need a much more specific example.

I don't agree with people disrupting my class, especially if they are simply walking by in the hallway. I am all for silencing the kids in the hallway trying to disrupt my class.

He says there have been censorship requests by christians, in the past and contemporary. And now it happens to christians, as we know. So, perhaps censorship is not good, because there are like 1 000 various groups who can claim offence, on false grounds, and claim hatespeech on false grounds, because they want to silence truth. As is the case with scripture regarding current times gender and sexuality issues, and the abortion thing, which arguments from scripture is deemed hatespeech on social media now.

And also, scrubbing Hitlers words, is just a way of hinding history, so we are doomed to repeat it, so not a good idea in that regard either. And if you censor, you radicalize, and do the exact opposite of what you claim to fight, so also counterproductive and dumb, and a lie. Which is a sin. Not typing you as in you, the general you, as in the ones asking for censorships in all the 1 000 various groups.

 

[mindfulzen]

Yes, I have been very clear that Facebook and Twitter are actively censoring speech.

No, the US government is prohibited from censoring speech.

Facebook can ban certain speech, perhaps hate speech, certain words, etc. They can post these rules for all to see. If someone violates a rule you tell them -- "in your last post you used a prohibited word -- see our rules." I have no problem if there are rules that everyone has to abide by, they are clearly articulated, and when you violate a rule they let you know.

That is not the case with Facebook, it is extremely arbitrary. In my case they didn't accuse me of violating any rule, only that someone complained. What does that mean, that anyone can simply say I don't like this person's facebook post so Facebook listens to them and shuts down that person's site? Why would anyone put up with that?

I heard they recently banned a post by their factcheckers and all the person did was cite the New England Journal of Medicine.

I consider it outrageous for people whose facebook is tied to their livelihood. They were deceived by Facebook and have suffered harm and will suffer harm if they have to move to a new social media platform.

social media is excempt from being sued for platforming, if they editorialize, they become a printing press, and must lose the protection. Cannot have the cake and eat it too. Must make a choice, just a platform they claim to be unbiased, which is not, they must lose it. Andd be open to lawsuits that would bankrupt them on the first month. Or state they are only for the left, and give the 50% remaining market to someone else. This is the law, the requirement in the regulation. This is why they got the deal to testify without taking the oath, so they will not be jailed for life for lying. And lose all their assets, and why they looked like ghosts at the hearings.

 

[ZNP]

social media is excempt from being sued for platforming, if they editorialize, they become a printing press, and must lose the protection. Cannot have the cake and eat it too. Must make a choice, just a platform they claim to be unbiased, which is not, they must lose it. Andd be open to lawsuits that would bankrupt them on the first month. Or state they are only for the left, and give the 50% remaining market to someone else. This is the law, the requirement in the regulation. This is why they got the deal to testify without taking the oath, so they will not be jailed for life for lying. And lose all their assets, and why they looked like ghosts at the hearings.

Good point, I'm sure if just explain this to the Biden administration they will agree with this. I mean sure, they used ANTIFA to riot and loot to help them take power, they used the most extensive fraud network to steal the election, they have cut deals with their donors to throw the doors wide open to this country and they just armed the Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaeda, and of course they were assisted by these tech giants censoring stories, but hey, why not tell them that it isn't righteous.

 

[mindfulzen]

Good point, I'm sure if just explain this to the Biden administration they will agree with this. I mean sure, they used ANTIFA to riot and loot to help them take power, they used the most extensive fraud network to steal the election, they have cut deals with their donors to throw the doors wide open to this country and they just armed the Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaeda, and of course they were assisted by these tech giants censoring stories, but hey, why not tell them that it isn't righteous.

Thank you, I am not taking the chance of commenting on the list of stuff you threw out. But I can tell you, the DNC controlled congress afforded them to testify without oath. And those testifying were big donors personally and corporate. Try opensource or whatever it is called, the website that publish the official donations to candidates. It is an approved site on social media, so should be good to use if you later discuss the topic, instead of using others.

 

[Nehemiah6]

social media is excempt from being sued for platforming...

And that is why they do as they please. Here is a bombshell:
Top Google Engineer Abandons Company, Reveals Big Tech Rewrote Algos To Target Trump
https://www.zerohedge.com/political...y-reveals-big-tech-rewrote-algos-target-trump

 

[SomeDisciple]

And that is why they do as they please. Here is a bombshell:
Top Google Engineer Abandons Company, Reveals Big Tech Rewrote Algos To Target Trump
https://www.zerohedge.com/political...y-reveals-big-tech-rewrote-algos-target-trump

I mean, this is harldy a shocker. I remember searching for Trump on NetFlix, and a bunch of Hitler titles came up. There is literally no way what was going on in the media during that time could have been more obvious. You'd have to have idiot glasses on not to see it.

 

[SteveEpperson]

So, perhaps censorship is not good, because there are like 1 000 various groups who can claim offence

Yeah. I think you get right at the heart of it here.

This new, woke culture we're facing today seems to take offense to everything except their own opinions.

 

[Gideon300]

Anytime we as Christians allow others to be silenced just because we don't fully agree with them, we become no better than the Marxists we claim to oppose.

Agree, or disagree?

Agree. It's foolish. If people don't say what they really think, how can you have a rational discussion? There is a line. Insulting or threatening people who don't agree is not acceptable. That especially applies to the worldly people who do not agree with us. We are supposed to love them, not abuse them.

 

[Nehemiah6]

This new, woke culture we're facing today seems to take offense to everything except their own opinions.

And those opinions are essentially garbage. Wokeism is another form of cultural censorship and should be rejected out of hand.

 

[Kidron]

Anytime we as Christians allow others to be silenced just because we don't fully agree with them, we become no better than the Marxists we claim to oppose.

Agree, or disagree?

Depends.

For example..
Lets say we are talking about a Christian Forum....
Now, i view a online forum, as an online Church that is 24/7.
That is how i see it.

So, my pov is that a "church" has to be protected......You have to keep the wolves away from it., and off of it.... unless they abide by conditions that do not allow them to teach theological lies.

These..

1. You can lose your salvation
2. Pre-destined elect theology
3. Water baptism is salvation
4. OSAS when it is taught as License to sin.
5. Must keep law and commandments to stay saved.

Keep those heresies off the forum, and your forum is 95% in agreement, and at peace.
But when you allow those heresies to keep becoming endless THREADS, endless CLICK BAIT FIGHTS.....then you keep allowing CHAOS and CONFUSION, and that is not of God.

See......if a Forum, which is an online Church, is not kept CLEAN of HERESY, and those who only use a Forum to try to twist the bible into a theological pretzel kept off, then this makes a forum a dangerous place for a : NEW CHRISTIAN.
And why would a CHRISTIAN Forum, be a place where a NEW CHRISTIAN can't go,?
Yet they are all this situation......dangerous for a New Believer who is trying to start their walk of TRUTH.
The pathetic reality is...... Christian forums are not really for christians, they are for teaching and arguing heresy.,....and that is not of God.

Let me drill it down for you.

Some of you are not Catholics or Jehovah's witnesses, or Mormons or a similar CULT.
So, if you are a Pastor, would you invite a Mary worshiping gospel of water heretic into your Pulpit? = Catholic Priest ?
Would invite a Mormon pastor, into your pulpit?
Would you invite a Jehovahs' witness, pastor, into your pulpit to teach your sheep?
NO !
And why not. ????? Because you dont allow wolves, heretical wolves....to have access to your church members as these people will destroy your Church.
And that is what they do on christian forums, because EVERYTHING is allowed as if all of it is TRUE..... , and that is not a good thing.

Ive had deceived Mods tell me......>"well really brother, we are all just trying to figure it out, and who knows what is right"
See that mind?
That is a deceived mind, whose true God is their opinion, and forums are filled with these carnal people and many are Mods.

 

[SteveEpperson]

Pre-destined elect theology

We both agree on the truth of the Gospel. And on a Christian forum, that's non-negotiable.

However, I've found something we disagree with regarding the Pre-destination doctrine.

So, should I be banned for disagreeing with you?

I liken it to the COVID vaccine debate.

There was no debate because any questions or concerns regarding it was censored.

Should the same thing happen here?

When you opened your reply with the word "depends," you open your mind to censorship. And freely-written speech should NEVER depend on anything. That's why it's considered FREE.

 

[Kidron]

So, should I be banned for disagreeing with you?

Depends on if what you believe is a Cross rejecting lie, that teaches that God chooses some for Hell, but not you or any in your family, which is surely a miracle, isn't it?

So, if you live in this theological hyper calvinistic fantasy lie, that also teaches that God creates all the evil, as if the DEVIL does not exist, then yeah, i'd ban you if you tried to teach this after you were warned that on my Christian Forum, this devilment is not allowed.
You'd need to find a place that allows this lie to be spread.

 

[SteveEpperson]

Depends

Again, you're setting conditions on written speech.

I get that it's not okay to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

But if I'm merely disagreeing with you on something, and you want to censor me for that, we start fracturing society even further.

I would not be surprised that, within ten years, we have states seceding from the US.

And in fractured, broken societies, there is always only one winner: Satan.

 

[SteveEpperson]

social media is excempt from being sued for platforming, if they editorialize, they become a printing press, and must lose the protection. Cannot have the cake and eat it too.

I'm with you. I hope the law changes soon.

 

[mindfulzen]

I'm with you. I hope the law changes soon.

Well, actually the laws are fina and dandy. Just the fact that they are not being applied after article 14 is being violated, or whatever the regulation that affords said protection is called. Cannot really remember, Not been into this in like a year or two, or whenever Mark Levin published his book about the printing press a while back, think it is his second last one. Derilic of duty, neglicence of officials