Comments by "DEXTER\x27S LURE LAB" (@secretbassrigs) on "BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Hears First Key Case Regarding Social Media Censorship Laws" video.

ESPECIALLY WHEN DONE BY NON PERSONS SUCH AS ARTIFICIAL PLATFORMS
8
"shadow banning" should definitely not be allowed. ALL FORMS OF CENSORSHIP SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT WITH DISCLOSURES TOWARDS INTENT AND MOTIVATION in order to justify it. It is impossible to protect the first amendment when the violation of it is prevented from being identified.
6
We all have a right to privacy. Do Americans have a right to recognize truly American sentiments? Under the current situation where platforms have every incentive not to, for the sake of increasing the perception of value for their advertisers and search engine algorithms, WE DO NOT.
3
@dragonf1092 so if you were defamed and labeled a predator of children by someone with more influence than you, you are saying you don't deserve the right to hold them accountable for damages? It's all about context. Under the current situation, it's impossible to recognize who is actually within our borders, and our forefathers did not intend to give adversarial governments and their agents the same freedom of speech protections. Especially when their intention is to deprive Americans of their rights to strengthen their abilities to deprive their own citizens of such rights accordingly.
3
Algorithms interpret speech according to arbitrary and opaque inputs.
2
Do Americans have the right to recognize genuine purely American sentiments that are not contaminated with non American sentiments? An informed population is essential for any representative government to function properly. The ability to recognize our collective sentiment is how we ensure the people are being represented. How can we do that when we can tell the difference between a genuine American account compared to one that is impersonating one? WE CAN'T UNDER CURRENT SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDELINES!
2
FALSLY YELLING "FIRE" IN A MOVIE THEATER WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS ARE ALWAYS A MATTER OF CONTEXT. Speech by who and by what needs to be differentiated to prevent the abuse of free speech by non persons not protected by the constitution. the constitution protects the speech of citizens over that of any government. Should speech from an adversarial foreign governments impersonating American voices be given the same protections as actual citizens, when that speech is intended to deprive actual Americans of their first amendment rights? Are political parties or corporations really people? if so, do they have the right to vote? Shouldn't free speech be transparent and free from obfuscation to protect the truth rather than to promote deception? THE COURT SHOULD ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF PRESERVING ORGANIC AMERICAN FREE SPEECH ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT ON THE SIDE OF NOT PERSONS TO SAY ANYTHING NO MATTER HOW FALSE OR DAMAGING. LIBEL AND DEFAMATION LAWS EXIST TO PREVENT SUCH HARMFUL SPEECH, AND THEY ARE NOT PROTETED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
2
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.
2
WIKIPEDIA - Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech. YOUTUBE SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT BE ALLOWED TO ARBITRARILY CENSOR ACTUAL PEOPLE WITHOUT TRANSPARENTLY DISCLOSING THEIR REASONS, INTENT AND MOTIVATIONS. Unfortunately, this is not the case because the regulations do not exist to enforce the transparency required to ensure equal protections.
2
The purpose for any representative government is to respond to the people's demands, not the people responding to the government's demands. That can only be accomplished when the collective sentiments of the people can be recognized. When the collective sentiments of the people are no longer recognizable, a representative government can no longer function.
2
"SELF EXPRESSION" NOUN the expression of ONE'S feelings, thoughts, or ideas, especially in writing, art, music, or dance. NOT ONE'S MISLEADING FEELINGS, THOUGHTS, OR IDEAS, INTENDED TO DECEIVE, OR DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR RIGHTS AND EQUAL PROTECTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Not the expressions of any government, or institution, especially if it is paid for on behalf of any government or institution. EVEN LAWYERS DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHEN REPRESENTING A CLIENT.
2
@jamesdanton9033 censorship can also be for the purposes of protecting genuine thoughts and expressions from misrepresentations and distortions from their true meaning. "Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech."
2
"Americans"! Yet it is impossible to identify a non American that is impersonating one.for political purposes, today. Without publicly exploring any solutions, Democrats want to claim election interference from Russia on Social Media, while simultaneously failing to publicly acknowledge China as doing the same. RINO Republicans, like Tucker Carlson as an equivalent extreme, just seem to be ignoring all of it to all of out detriment.
1
FALSLY YELLING "FIRE" IN A MOVIE THEATER WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS ARE ALWAYS A MATTER OF CONTEXT. Speech by who and by what needs to be differentiated to prevent the abuse of free speech by non persons not protected by the constitution. the constitution protects the speech of citizens over that of any government. Should speech from an adversarial foreign governments impersonating American voices be given the same protections as actual citizens, when that speech is intended to deprive actual Americans of their first amendment rights? Are political parties or corporations really people? if so, do they have the right to vote? Shouldn't free speech be transparent and free from obfuscation to protect the truth rather than to promote deception? THE COURT SHOULD ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF PRESERVING ORGANIC AMERICAN FREE SPEECH ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT ON THE SIDE OF NOT PERSONS TO SAY ANYTHING NO MATTER HOW FALSE OR DAMAGING. LIBEL AND DEFAMATION LAWS EXIST TO PREVENT SUCH HARMFUL SPEECH, AND THEY ARE NOT PROTETED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
1
FALSLY YELLING "FIRE" IN A MOVIE THEATER WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS ARE ALWAYS A MATTER OF CONTEXT. Speech by who and by what needs to be differentiated to prevent the abuse of free speech by non persons not protected by the constitution. the constitution protects the speech of citizens over that of any government. Should speech from an adversarial foreign governments impersonating American voices be given the same protections as actual citizens, when that speech is intended to deprive actual Americans of their first amendment rights? Are political parties or corporations really people? if so, do they have the right to vote? Shouldn't free speech be transparent and free from obfuscation to protect the truth rather than to promote deception? THE COURT SHOULD ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF PRESERVING ORGANIC AMERICAN FREE SPEECH ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT ON THE SIDE OF NOT PERSONS TO SAY ANYTHING NO MATTER HOW FALSE OR DAMAGING. LIBEL AND DEFAMATION LAWS EXIST TO PREVENT SUCH HARMFUL SPEECH, AND THEY ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. WHY SHOULD YOUTUBE BE ALLOWED TO CENSOR actual American voices in favor of anonymous foreign voices? Or even have the right to arbitrarily limit free speech debate that is not in it's favor without accountability?
1
@dragonf1092 the constitution only applies within "the land". It does not give foreign adversaries the same rights like it does not give non citizens within or outside the US the right to vote in US elections.
1
@jamesdanton9033 Even if it promotes Genocide? What makes you so certain you or anyone you love will never be subject to genocide? The most important thing is that the law represents everyone equally. I can handle all speech without acting unconstitutionally. I fully promote freedom of true expressions from REAL people, not from foreign actors or bots IMPERSONATING AMERICANS intent on abusing our laws and perceptions of them to deprive us of those rights and protections they afford us. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMIT PERJURY OR OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VERBALLY ASSAULT A MINOR. AND THE LAW HAS THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE YOU FOR IT ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE THE LAW IS PROTECTING OR SEEKING JUSTICE FOR. YOUR ARGUMENT ACTUALLY ABSOLVES THE Biden Administration and DNC for calling J6 entrapment legally justified. Your argument enables the obstruction of justice that covers up the criminal ending of Ashli Babbitt's existence in comparison to the politically motivated prosecution of Derek Chauvin. Perceptions are incredibly vulnerable to ignorance. That's why freedom of information is also guaranteed. When certain citizens and the government act upon ignorance and falsities against the constitution, they are acting criminally. The truth is what sets you free. Not overwhelming deception.
1
@jamesdanton9033 then you support everything the current administration is saying about conservatives and about racism being an inherently white derivative?
1
@jamesdanton9033 are you saying you support election interference through false information and obfuscations of the truth?
1
@jamesdanton9033 so basically you support political disinformation?
1
@jamesdanton9033 do you support the labeling of J6 as an insurrection?
1
@jamesdanton9033 your arguments really protects the current administration more than the known facts.
1
@jamesdanton9033 do you believe Fentanyl Floyd was suffocated by Chauvin?
1
@jamesdanton9033 to have freedom, one should also be responsible enough and informed enough to understand what it means to preserve it for themselves and their fellow citizens. It's our duty as Americans to ourselves and each other.
1