comment: >
  
  There is accountability. It’s called natural consequence. If people don’t like what you are saying, they generally unsubscribe to your content, or you lose them as a friend. Similarly, if there is an appetite for what you are saying, you will gain a broader following. Who are you to deny people’s preferences? 
  Now as far as inflammatory content being the catalyst for deleterious events (e.g. many people reference Jan 6), it’s inherently wrong to say free speech is the main culprit of these events. To say so, denies human agency. Generally we like to believe that humans are able to make rational decisions for themselves, regardless of the content they consume. To say otherwise actually runs counter to your idea of imposing consequences. That’s because without agency, people actually can’t help the content they produce, similarly to others not being able to control the actions they perpetrate when consuming “dangerous content”. If they can’t help it, why should we impose punishment?
context: Is there anyone saying otherwise? Who do you think says that free speech means zero consequences? >
  
  gestures broadly at some of the responses already received free speech is weaponized by certain people to excuse the spread of misinformation. When these people do face consequences for their misinformation on social media sites, forums or in person they say they are being oppressed. >
  
  And they are free to say they are being oppressed. What's your point? >
  
  For sure they are. I am sure they will have some talking head affirm their bias that they are oppressed. It will be a lie there’s disconnected from the reality of the situation. That person had their statement moderated due to inflammatory content or misinformation, not because there’s a grand conspiracy to silence them. Yet they would rather believe in the conspiracy and let that influence their actions, their options, how they vote. Those free speech consequences are now felt without accountability for the damage they have done. >
  
  How can there be a consequence without accountability? I'm confused on what you're saying. >
  
  Take for instance the January 6th insurrection attempt. All of those people who believed the big lie told to them that the election was fraudulent, stolen etc attempted to stop the Biden certification because they believed that. The consequence of that lie was what happened on January 6th. What about the people who spread those lies? What about all the YouTubers and influencers who lied to make them believe that? Where is their accountability? Where is the accountability for those in our own government who aided that lie? And how on earth could these people blatantly lie and still be able to retain or obtain office? >
  
  
  What about the people who spread those lies?
  
  But if they believed it, then they weren't lies. >
  
  I dont think people even try to argue otherwise 
  Your post probably doesn't belong here because what you said is objectively true. Of course freedom of speech has consequences, and of course that freedom will be abused by some. Everything has consequences >
  
  Indeed,  most people would agree with that. However, we cannot allow misinformation to continue to damage people/families/democracy. So when you frame it in that way where they has to be accountability for some speech and the damage it causes, there are those who believe this means silencing certain voices or oppression. >
  
  
  we cannot allow misinformation to continue to damage people/families/democracy.
  
  We can't? Do you remember the mass misinformation campaigns related to the coronavirus and the presidential election? There is daily misinformation posted on r/conspiracy every minute. >
  
  I do as I follow that sub. Which is why my thread is saying that my opinion states that people who spread this damaging misinformation under the guise of free speech should be held accountable. >
  
  Be held accountable how and by whom? What would that accountability look like? >
  
  As I’ve stated previously, we use free speech to hold others accountable. We question misinformation. We address social media pushing us further into our own safe bubbles of speech and interact with those we may not agree with. We publicly, universally and unequivocally no longer allow misinformation the air it needs to breathe. >
  
  How is that not happening now? >
  
  I don't think that anyone can really argue with your primary point, but deltas can still be awarded for changing any element of your view. 
  
  To fix this abuse of free speech or the exploration of democracy, we should seek not the end of free speech or democracy. We can use the tools of democracy and free speech against those who abuse them for their own profit.
  
  (Gonna guess you meant "exploration of democracy.)
  I think the best method to fight the spread of major misinformation and lies is, in fact, to end "free speech." To clarify, I obviously don't mean all free speech, but rather, our government can, and should, impose some restrictions on the spreading of certain dangerous misinformation.
  The First Amendment, as currently understood in America, is universally considered by academics to be far more broad than what the founders intended. Yet, even with all the protections the courts have given to speech over the years, there's still not a clear determination of how the government can regulate false speech. I think it is incumbent on leaders to make clear that some false speech can be, and ought to be, punished. Even if it's rarely punished, this will hopefully provide some chilling effect to prevent major institutions from lying about certain things. >
  
  Almost everything in life has consequences, I don't think that's ground breaking or a view that needs changing. 
  Who exactly is saying this is something without consequence? >
  
  refer to my some of the comments on this thread >
  
  You can't have formed a view based on comments you hadn't yet received. So, rather than looking at subsequent comments, can you point to where it was being said prior to this? I've had a quick Google but can't find anything. >
  
  You had a quick google and couldn’t find anything where people say their free speech is being oppressed due to their use of that speech to spread misinformation? Have you also not been paying attention to social dialogue, even recently, regarding the Twitter files conspiracy?
  And I was referencing a comment already posted to this thread >
  
  
  You had a quick google and couldn’t find anything where people say their free speech is being oppressed due to their use of that speech to spread misinformation?
  
  That wasn't your headline though. Your clearly stated view is 'CMV: free speech has consequences' and that is what I've looked for. That is what I cannot find anything saying. And that is what I'm asking for direction on, please. I can't find anything substantial which suggests anyone is saying otherwise. 
  
  And I was referencing a comment already posted to this thread
  
  I understand, but I'm interested in what formed the view in the first place, not what you've received since posting the view. >
  
  If you can’t find it via google or just reading the comments to this thread then I don’t know what to tell you. I typed my title into google and was able to find different articles that went in depth into this issue. Misinformation is being weaponized under the guise of free speech. This misinformation needs to be met with accountability. We hold these lies accountable through more dialogue, discussion and breaking down why this misinformation is wrong. Social media platforms should also hold the misinformation said on their sites accountable and act accordingly. >
  
  But none of this has anything to do with changing the view 'free speech has consequences'. This is the view you say you hold and want changing, suggesting someone else is arguing the opposite. But who? 
  Can you, or can you not, direct me somewhere where someone is arguing free speech does not have consequences ? Not about misinformation, or accountability, but the actual view you've asked to be changed. 
  If the answer is no, that's is fine. I fear having to ask for it this many times suggests you cannot.
  And, yet again, can I repeat that I have NO INTEREST reading other comments on this thread because I DO NOT CARE about them. I am interested in what CREATED YOUR VIEW. And your view cannot be created by comments made after posting this. I capitalise this not too be rude, but too really draw attention to it so you can stop directing me to them. >
  
  
  At this point you’re purposefully missing the point of this post
  
  I think the issue is that your point and what you repeatedly talk about are not actually connected.
  
  as well as my responses due to the semantics of my title.
  
  You're right. Maybe we shouldn't look at your opening paragraph
  
  Free speech in our society is great for being able to speak out on things that are wrong in our society, things we perceive as wrong. It’s great because we don’t get send to gulags for speaking out against the government. On one hand, it requires a transparency and accountability that would not be there if not for our rights of free speech in America. However, free speech can also have its consequences. 
  
  Oh no. This is still very closely talking about free speech having consequences, the argument in your headline. It isn't semantics. 
  
  But you said it clearly yourself, you don’t care
  
  I've said I don't care what others have said. I want to know what formed your opinion. You can clearly read that in my reply to you if you don't stop reading before the full stop. 
  
  So neither do I with entertaining your comments any further.
  
  But you never did. You can't actually show who has constructed this point because no one actually has. You've used it because you want to talk about these other things, but they don't relate to your main point. You've been repeatedly asked to simply explain who is saying arguing the opposite point of view and you cannot even do that.
  So let's draw this conversation to an end. We cannot change your view because, currently, there is no one arguing against it. 
  Good bye. >
  
  The lack of robust free speech and public debate arguably contributed heavily to the ability of the Bush administration to convince the public that we should invade Iraq. FAIR reported at the time about the massive bias towards platforming pro-war voices in US media, and a shocking percent of Americans believed outright falsehoods about the war, such as 57% believing Saddam was connected to al Qaeda or involved in 9/11. 
  Note that I'm not talking merely about the 1A. The 1A exists to prevent the government from actively stifling free speech, yet the corporate capture of our media has nonetheless resulted in a situation in which we are not actually informed and our ability to counter disinformation from government and corporate sources is curtailed. >
  
  Indeed, and we are seeing this play out in different ways in our society currently, especially so with news sources moving towards social media that feed bias through algorithms. That is where I believe that free speech’s consequences need to be met with accountability by those who are weaponizing free speech to spread the misinformation. >
  
  Accountability from whom, though? As the Twitter Files have showed, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been telling social media platforms what they think should be censored, and in many cases the platforms comply, even though they are not legally obligated to do so (although there is coercive element at play.)
  If this accountability is to come from the government, then we're just back to the situation the 1A seeks to address: the government using its power to stifle speech that it doesn't like. Some of the speech it censors would be likely would be found objectionable by most people, yet if we allow them that power we won't actually know what they're censoring and whether it actually should be. >
  
  The people who were censored under the Twitter files were people who were spreading misinformation and going against the social media platforms ToS, per what my understanding of that subject is at the moment. I am not entirely educated all of the way on this subject so I am open to where I can find a more in depth understanding of the Twitter files. 
  The government already has laws which stifles and makes illegal certain forms of speech. Why should misinformation spread on social media which has been shown to incite violence be any different? >
  
  The tenth installment gets into government communications with Twitter concerning accounts and information the government wanted suppressed on Covid. 
  
  who were spreading misinformation and going against the social media platforms ToS, per what my understanding of that subject is at the moment.
  
  In many cases, they were asked to take things down which did not violate their ToS. But I think deeper than that is the idea that we can just reliably determine what is or isn't misinformation, especially in the context of novel developments. People were in some cases censored for saying things now widely believed to be true. 
  
  Why should misinformation spread on social media which has been shown to incite violence be any different?
  
  Because that's an extremely vague standard open to abuse. You can make a case than misinformation by Trump supporters about voting irregularities in 2020 contributed to real world violence. What does that mean going forward? Should all claims of election irregularities be censored because they might contribute to future violence? What if there actually are election regularities? >
  
  So far reading what you showed (I am not done reading and I am going into work soon so I’ll return to it later), I do want to pick your brain about the people who posted anti-vaccine things. They didn’t just express an opinion. They spread misinformation that caused people to die by not getting the vaccine. Sure, it was that persons choice to not get the vaccine. These people lied and it resulted in deaths. I would absolutely want my government to respond to this misinformation as it poses a public health issue. Even with that what I said, how you perceive what I just said can be filtered differently based on what you believe. I am not advocating for people who choose not to get vaccines to never be able to share their opinions or speak openly about their opinions. I am talking about the coordinated campaigns to attack the CDC/Fauci etc that said there were tracking chills in the vaccine, the vaccine would kill you or make you infertile. Those are outlandish lies that are not the same as someone just sharing an anti-vaxx opinion. 
  It is vague. It is open to abuse. We can’t just throw up our hands and close our eyes to this damage being done by these people. We can do better. >
  
  
  people who posted anti-vaccine things. They didn’t just express an opinion. They spread misinformation that caused people to die by not getting the vaccine. Sure, it was that persons choice to not get the vaccine. These people lied and it resulted in deaths.
  
  Yes, these are the consequences of allowing free speech and I think that cost is worth it. 
  
  I would absolutely want my government to respond to this misinformation as it poses a public health issue.
  
  It depends on how they respond. I have no issue with them putting out information backed by scientific studies that contradicts what they deem to be misinformation. I do have an issue with them directing social media to take down posts or accounts for spreading information they disagree with. 
  Not only does such a situation leave us with no access to true information if our public health (or other government agencies) become captured or corrupted, but even if they're acting in 100% good faith they might have incomplete information themselves. 
  Furthermore, they've burned a lot of their credibility with large segments of the population. Their attemts at information control have made many people skeptical not just of Covid vaccines but of all vaccines. 
  
  I am talking about the coordinated campaigns to attack the CDC/Fauci etc that said there were tracking chills in the vaccine, the vaccine would kill you or make you infertile. Those are outlandish lies that are not the same as someone just sharing an anti-vaxx opinion. 
  
  These vaccines have led to people dying, although admittedly we don't know how many because many of the reported cases of vaccine injuries leading to death were not properly investigated. 
  I don't think information control works, even if it seems it might have positive benefits in the short term, because it eventually leads to a breakdown in trust of the entire information ecosystem. Democracy is predicated on an informed populace, so if the information is controlled by the government and/or the corporations, we just have authoritarianism with more steps. >
  
  Wanna know something else? Actions generally have consequences. Mind blowing. >
  
  Indeed and consequences need accountability.