caller: "freedom of speech 30 years ago allowed freedom of ideas - but what ideas are harmful to society and who decides who gets to regulate them?"

LET ME PARICALIZE THAT FOR YOU briefly, since socrates would say you've mixed up your words thus cannot find your answer

Facebook: DELETES OPIONS, IDEAS, LEGAL COMPLAINTS (against democrats and themselves),

-------------------------------
freedom of speech was never the freedom to lie or assult

it was the freedom of someone accused to refuse accusations against them (using what they believed to be the truth, NOT lies), or in any suit in court or simply public speech to refute any words that amounted in a suit of money, debt, or demotion (assault of character effecting job status). IT DISALLOWED THE GOVERNMENT AND THE POWERFUL BOTH FROM PREVENTING RESPONSE TO MONOLOGUES which blamed other for misfortunes, called for debt, or of course: attempted to collect money for a SCAM.

---------------------------------
IDEAS

there was never a limit of speech by the King on "ideas" or "fiction" so long as they were not un-Holy

therefore - the idea "Facebook or government or agency" would ever have the power to "edit ideas" is absolute bloody rot

----------------------

back to freedom of speech, the greatest extent on limiting speech is "preventing LIES being told in monologue such as CNN bribing FOX to all agree Biden won" - however - the liar is usually always the one who's first given a monologue that others must be free to refute. therefore - freedom of speech means both parties must speak even though one party may well know they are lying

there is no "correct way" to elect a person not to be able to respond truthfully

HOWEVER - IT IS POSSIBLE that one can, by later investigation, be determine in court to have lied (ie, to tell a group an STOCK PRICE WILL GO UP when he had recorded phone messages telling others it would go DOWN). it is too late to prevent speech but it NOT too late to (appropriately) fine or put the person in prison FOR INTENTLY LYING

LIES were NEVER protected by the Bible or by Law

that being said - in Engleland the King might get angry at some lout printing news the people no longer needed a King - likely permitted a few joking missives

the idea FACEBOOK should have any power a King once had

well - they KILLED KINGS - we could do the same with TWITTER KINGS

(on PUBLIC WEB SITES NOT PRIVATE CLUBS - any BBS, NNTP, facebook, is a public site while cell private chat is NOT)

Should individuals have a "right" to print a MONOLOGUE without out anyone being able to refute false items? probably not. but the responses to a monologue should not "mix in push down and obstruct" the document by being mixed in

Should Washington Post never offer corrections when callers in prove an article wrong? ABSOLUTELY NOT

THEY SHOULD BE FORCED TO OFFER BOTH CORRECTION AND PUBLISH a few ARTICLES BY THE READERS

freedom of speech law means assuring honest repsonses to legally impacting monologues are not blocked

it never means quieting one part*

except where knowing intent to lie is proven

when is opinion opinion and when is it legal speech?

well, the simple thing is if you are in court and speaking to the Judge you must speak of a will to be civilly participating. if you express a will to continue crime the judge absolutely can put you back in prison for your speech

it gets more difficult if "London Breed" hires a cocaine poor actor to say "louise vatton is white privelage" after a burglary

it is sedition to exclaim crime is not crime

BLM is sedition

BUT THE CRUX IS WHETHER THESE SAME DEMOCRAT FORCES PREVENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THESE HOLLYWOOD STATEMENTS by using "big tech" to insure there are 100:1 democrats on TV and INTERNET WEB EDITING. and we all know what needs to happen - there needs to be 5-5 not 1038983:1 the answer is democrats spend too much time fucking around

saying "crime sprees are legal" in the NEWS should not be a protected right, your right is to say laws should change constructively. seizing assets of unprotected (individuals / selected sellers) is NOT a right

saying "i believe COVID is a PFIEZER SCAM" in the news should be a protected right but that right is being stomped all over

ultimately - opinions aren't regulated - if you have bad opinions you are "MAD MAGAZINE" and shouldn't call yourself news - but they call themselves news anyway. NOTE THAT BILL CLINTON ATTACKED THAT MAGAZINE - WHICH was a magazine white boys enjoyed

Your supposed to be liable for injuring others not prattling opinions - and "news" has become a ruined name and label.

SO WE ARE BACK TO THE MORE SERIOUS ISSUE EVERYONE HAS LATCHED ONTO:

* NEWS ISN'T NEWS IT'S FAKE. 100% OF TV IS OWNED BY BIG TECH. ONLY 1 OUT OF 100 NEWS CHANNELS ALLOWS CONSERVATIVE HOSTS - AND THOSE CHANNELS INSURE COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA PLAYS DURING THEIR BROADCAST

WE ARE BACK TO THE NUMBERS GAME, FRAUD, MONEY, AND POWER

USA can't worry about prattle while BIG TECH is allowing china and germany to dictate "what posts" to delete on twitter , and there isn't a single all-day conservative new channel (podcast excluded)

arguing over prattle makes no sense in the light of things

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2021/11/26/seth-rogen-ripped-for-downplaying-rising-crime-in-los-angeles-white-rich-privilege-at-its-finest/

more disburbingly - the Mayor has released statements that crimes against whites are not crime but justice

that whites and illegal aliens employed to make Handbags shouldn't have jobs "THERE SHOULD JUST BE MORE UN-EMPLOYED", and that gain of money shouldn't be able to buy nicer things. (realize a white man in NYC employs a white french woman in NYC to design handbags and illegal aliens do the cutting and sewing - very literally - but they over "over-stocked" due to lack of sales due to fake chinese bags, looting, store closures, the rich deciding "looking like everyone else" is a better idea, and so on)

and that: MAYOR LONDON BREED should enjoy heavy taxation, delivered to NAACP and the NATIONAL BLACK CAUCUS of imports from china

BEFORE CRT THEY TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS "IF EVERYONE LOOKED THE SAME, DRESSED THE SAME, ACTED THE SAME, THE WORLD WOULD BE A BORING PLACE"

it would also be a place where niggers looted without law under a nigger mayor and rich people cowered in chinese clothing and french white woman pondered whether they were too old to begin hooking for a living to pay rent to the nigger landlord

that being said, "overstock.com" proves the chinese make allot of crap that never should have been made nobody wants and ...

it gets shipped to america because chinese refuse to consume that crap and democrats force usa to pay chinese for it - which puts USA in the sight of a cross-hair of paying for chinese crap while china uses the money to build a military