Is Free Speach Under Attack?

[SteveEpperson]

Here in Canada we have a Federal Gov that has made it a crime to not call people by their chosen pronoun eg. them

I'm sorry you're going through that right now. I will pray for Canada and the fine people there. And I hope one day you will get a new prime minister, one who will restore your God-given liberties.

I also pray for our friends in Australia and the oppression they're experiencing in their country in the name of COVID. I fear it's coming to the US, also.

 

[SteveEpperson]

Oh, Crud!

I just realized I spelled speech wrong in the title!

 

[kaylagrl]

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?

Ummm not sure on that one. Take for instance CRT, are you saying we should allow that in schools? Or even in the work place?

 

[ZNP]

Ummm not sure on that one. Take for instance CRT, are you saying we should allow that in schools? Or even in the work place?

Isn't this hysterical? People talk about not censoring or silencing people because we don't agree with them and yet they have no issue saying you can't mention Jesus, you can't use the Bible.

God tells us we are required to teach our kids the word and yet the only thing these people think should be censored is God's word.

 

[Rockson]

[QUOTE="ZNP, post: 4626518, member: 301387"d 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.
[/QUOTE]

I think it was one of the greatest tragedies of our time that a social media platform has got so my influence over the people. If the Lord tarries another 100 years that will how they'll look upon it too.

 

[ZNP]

[QUOTE="ZNP, post: 4626518, member: 301387"d 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.

I think it was one of the greatest tragedies of our time that a social media platform has got so my influence over the people. If the Lord tarries another 100 years that will how they'll look upon it too.[/QUOTE]
It was deceit and robbery. People thought it was a platform and yet they behave as a publisher. People thought the content belonged to them and yet they were very quick to delete and destroy peoples posts. They have libeled people and their business. Their judgement will not slumber.

 

[SteveEpperson]

Ummm not sure on that one. Take for instance CRT, are you saying we should allow that in schools? Or even in the work place?

The author of CRT should be allowed to write as many books about it as they like. However, the schools don't necessarily have to adopt the policies.

You and I disagree with atheists like Richard Dawkins but we can both agree that they should be able to write whatever they want.

Free speech is being able to say or write whatever we want, even if 99.9 percent of the population disagrees with it.

And I would go as far as to say that even "misinformation" is protected free speech.

In the US, it only becomes illegal if you attempt to use that misinformation for monetary gain and defraud the public.

 

[SteveEpperson]

I think it was one of the greatest tragedies of our time that a social media platform has got so my influence over the people. If the Lord tarries another 100 years that will how they'll look upon it too.

It was deceit and robbery. People thought it was a platform and yet they behave as a publisher. People thought the content belonged to them and yet they were very quick to delete and destroy peoples posts. They have libeled people and their business. Their judgement will not slumber.[/QUOTE]

Yes. And what we're learning now is that the US government is working with the social media giants to censor certain information. This state-sponsored attack on free speech needs to end before it gets worse. And hopefully, it will soon.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Yes. But that often comes at the price of being silenced.



And you reiterate that nicely here.



Your reply is well-written and well-received.

Thankyou. Much appreciated.

 

[kaylagrl]

The author of CRT should be allowed to write as many books about it as they like. However, the schools don't necessarily have to adopt the policies.

You and I disagree with atheists like Richard Dawkins but we can both agree that they should be able to write whatever they want.

Free speech is being able to say or write whatever we want, even if 99.9 percent of the population disagrees with it.

And I would go as far as to say that even "misinformation" is protected free speech.

In the US, it only becomes illegal if you attempt to use that misinformation for monetary gain and defraud the public.

Playing devils advocate here... The problem is, schools are adopting CRT, behind parents backs. In fact the changed the name to fool parents. So what do we do with dangerous ideals like Marxism and Nazism etc. ?

 

[ZNP]

Now that we have the Ministry of Disinformation Why is this thread still in the "Conspiracy" forum instead of the News forum?

 

[kaylagrl]

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?

It really depends. Radical leftist are trying to push homosexual teaching in elementary school. They consider that "free speech" and you can watch "Liberals of Tic Toc" as "teachers" talk about their sexual preference.

 

[SteveEpperson]

It really depends. Radical leftist are trying to push homosexual teaching in elementary school. They consider that "free speech" and you can watch "Liberals of Tic Toc" as "teachers" talk about their sexual preference.

I believe this is different. Even though it might not seem like parents have much control, the law allows for legislators in most states to determine what is appropriate for textbooks, which has a strong precedent for flexibility by lower-court judges. In other words, it does not fall under the same free-speech rules as some other rulings in the past.

 

[kaylagrl]

I believe this is different. Even though it might not seem like parents have much control, the law allows for legislators in most states to determine what is appropriate for textbooks, which has a strong precedent for flexibility by lower-court judges. In other words, it does not fall under the same free-speech rules as some other rulings in the past.

But the radicals are pushing it as a free speech issue, like when the Nazis burned books. smh