The abortion law builds on legislation passed in 2010 that represented a major shift for a traditionally Catholic country, transforming Spain into one of the most progressive countries in Europe on reproductive rights. Spain's constitutional court last week rejected a challenge by the right-wing Popular Party against allowing abortions in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
The debate will be heated in Spain, I imagine, as the conservative opposition pushes back. My daughter had horrible menstrual pain during her adolescence and young adulthood. I'm certain that she would have benefitted from that time.
Do you remember when a witness in one of the hearings about Hunter's laptop said that Trump pressured a social media platform to suppress the free speech of another user?
Yes. I think the Harris administration will expect media outlets to publish truth and to limit the lies that people can spread during a pandemic or other national emergency. Trump supporters might consider that to be "shenanigans" I suppose.
So if Trump wins and pressures media outlets to limit information based on what he feels is not true is perfectly fine?
The thing with free speech is that all speech should be free. Even untruth, inappropriate or hateful (to a limit).
Who will be deemed responsible for deciding? The government? Would you feel comfortable with Trump deciding?
When the government in power is allowed to determine what is truth or inappropriate that's no longer a free country.
No government body should ever hold the absolute power to control or determine what the citizens of the country can say or not say. That's tyranny.
It's not clear to me what kind of pressure was applied. It sounds as if Facebook did not comply anyway.
It's called jawboning, a term that's been around since the late sixties. As an intellectual strategy, it's practically the definition of politics: using persuasion to affect the behavior of the electorate.
The definition and limits of free speech are stil l fuzzy for me. On one hand, free speech for me includes free speech for thee. Anyone remember when the ACLU went to court on behalf of the right of the KKK to hold a march? (They won).
On the other hand, the right to free speech does not include the right to a platform or freedom from the consequences of your speech.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
So if Trump wins and pressures media outlets to limit information based on what he feels is not true is perfectly fine?
The thing with free speech is that all speech should be free. Even untruth, inappropriate or hateful (to a limit).
Who will be deemed responsible for deciding? The government? Would you feel comfortable with Trump deciding?
When the government in power is allowed to determine what is truth or inappropriate that's no longer a free country.
No government body should ever hold the absolute power to control or determine what the citizens of the country can say or not say. That's tyranny.
Trump already pressured media outlets during his first presidency. This was confirmed in sworn testimony. I linked to an article about that and watched the hearing myself when that testimony was provided.
Sure. People can say whatever stupid, ignorant, or malicious thing they want, but, as has been discussed before, when those things can be dangerous for public health or general safety, the reckless or belligerent individuals have no expectation that private media outlets won't provide warnings to the public that they are about to look at garbage. They can say it on the street corner but they can't necessarily make a social media outlet publish it unscathed for general consumption. As we saw in 2020, most of the social media that will tolerate lots of social and political lies wouldn't tolerate the same level of lies about public health during a pandemic.
Of course I wouldn't be comfortable with Trump deciding anything of consequence. Trump is a mentally ill old man with evidence of dementia. He has repeatedly demonstrated that his judgment is deeply flawed. Trump thinks that there is such a thing as alternate facts and he often seems to be delusional.
While your preferred politician was the largest source of misinformation and lies about covid in 2020, a government interested in promoting and messaging truth about public health issues is portrayed by you as tyranny.
Crusades said:
That article says Trump asked, not pressured. Right in the title. LOL
Oh...ohhh... he asked, maybe even said please...LOL
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Because the "book banning" that you are referencing isn't "book banning". It's removing inappropriate material from the access of children in school.These books are readily available in libraries and on line. If the government removed this inappropriate material from the libraries and prevented sales, this is "book banning".
So I guess Facebook removed "inappropriate material" that the government in power said was "inappropriate " and pressured them to do so.. Last time I checked governments restricting and and using their power to influence the public on what can or cannot be read wasn't democracy it was fascist.
I disagree with your definition of book banning and what is happening in the USA.
Trump already pressured media outlets during his first presidency. This was confirmed in sworn testimony. I linked to an article about that and watched the hearing myself when that testimony was provided.
Sure. People can say whatever stupid, ignorant, or malicious thing they want, but, as has been discussed before, when those things can be dangerous for public health or general safety, the reckless or belligerent individuals have no expectation that private media outlets won't provide warnings to the public that they are about to look at garbage. They can say it on the street corner but they can't necessarily make a social media outlet publish it unscathed for general consumption. As we saw in 2020, most of the social media that will tolerate lots of social and political lies wouldn't tolerate the same level of lies about public health during a pandemic.
Of course I wouldn't be comfortable with Trump deciding anything of consequence. Trump is a mentally ill old man with evidence of dementia. He has repeatedly demonstrated that his judgment is deeply flawed. Trump thinks that there is such a thing as alternate facts and he often seems to be delusional.
While your preferred politician was the largest source of misinformation and lies about covid in 2020, a government interested in promoting and messaging truth about public health issues is portrayed by you as tyranny.
Oh...ohhh... he asked, maybe even said please...LOL
That seems a naive interpretation but you do you.
Quote
won't provide warnings to the public that they are about to look at garbage.
That's not what the Biden- Harris administration was doing tho was it? Asking to "provide warnings" .
I have no idea what events or efforts you are hyperventilating about in the last paragraph.
Banning books from school libraries isn't the same as a government telling the citizens what they can or cannot read then actively not allowing these books to be read by anyone because it goes against the government ideology.
If you were hyperventilating about the government banning these book from stores and on line, I would be hyperventilating right with you. Regardless of what was in these books.
It's interesting that you may be unaware of the Nazi book burning and censorship... Then pretend that this is not what is being suggested with "conservatives want to ban books".
Quote
As part of an effort to align German arts and culture with Nazi ideas (Gleichschaltung), university students in college towns across Germany burned thousands of books they considered to be "un-German,” heralding an era of state censorship and cultural control
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
That's not what the Biden- Harris administration was doing tho was it? Asking to "provide warnings" .
I know what the claims were in the congressional hearings and I know that the claims were not substantiated in sworn testimony or evidence. What is it that you are trying to claim? You'll need to bring some evidence to back up your speculations.
You are making assumptions that it was only disinformation that the administration was trying to suppress.
Anyway, the government still is not to suppress free speech.
There is no law against yelling fire in a crowded theatre. You might be charged with disturbing the peace, or manslaughter if someone is killed in a stampede, or some other crime. The first amendment won't protect you in that case.
Do you have any other examples of the government suppressing citizen's speech "in the name of public interest "? Would you be OK with a Republican administration pressuring Facebook to censor?
Since Zuckerberg didn't announce exactly what was being "censored", it was probably something he agreed shouldn't be put up on his platform. He could have said "no". Do you think Zuckerberg allows himself to be pressured by anyone? He's the ahole here, not the people trying to get Covid under control.
I know what the claims were in the congressional hearings and I know that the claims were not substantiated in sworn testimony or evidence. What is it that you are trying to claim? You'll need to bring some evidence to back up your speculations.
There's a letter from Mark Zuckerberg said that the Biden Harris administration pressured him and how he regrets being influenced by that. In his own words. It was already posted.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Banning books from school libraries isn't the same as a government telling the citizens what they can or cannot read then actively not allowing these books to be read by anyone because it goes against the government ideology.
If you were hyperventilating about the government banning these book from stores and on line, I would be hyperventilating right with you. Regardless of what was in these books.
It's interesting that you may be unaware of the Nazi book burning and censorship... Then pretend that this is not what is being suggested with "conservatives want to ban books".
Feined ignorance is lazy propaganda.
It's interesting to me how banning books from libraries is not banning books in your opinion.
What in the world ever gave you the impression that I might have been unaware that fascists in Germany banned books? What do you think I'm pretending?
Conservative groups are getting books removed from libraries. That's not opinion, that's fact. Are you pretending that book banning is not happening or are you pretending that it's not "conservatives" doing the banning?
Crusades
1,655 Posts
That article says Trump asked, not pressured. Right in the title. LOL