New A2K is Anti-Free Speech

First, I note that you consider this little dig to be more interesting than the thread topic.

I would think that, as a lawyer, you would be interested in defending the ideals expressed in the Constitution.

You are wasting your time Brandon, as we have already been through this topic. While a sizable portion of a2ker's are nervous there is not enough energy for a revolt, the ownership has dug in their heels and refused to change course, so the outcome has been determined. Already many of the most interesting and thought provoking members have departed or reduced activity, and this trend will continue. a2k will not attract replacements for them. I gather that this site was the go to place after Abuzz went to hell, and I suspect that many of us will eventually meet up at the next hot spot now that a2k is failing.

Your point about a lack of support of free speech is right on. Many commentators in America have pointed out that it is highly unlikely that the people who make up America in 2008 would ratify the Constitution as it is written. The speaks to how Americans have been corrupted by fear, been manipulated with fear up power games for so long that the majority no longer know any other way to live. For the majority the freedoms in the Constitution represent uncertainly and danger, it is a bad idea.

Which gets to why it was a bad idea for a2k owners to empower majority rule and to set up a system where group decisions are emotionally made on the fly. The tendency of modern majority is to choose safety and comfort over the hurly-burly of the free exchange of ideas. It is not by accident that the level of discourse in general society has become a shadow of what we once had, back when America was the home of the free man who was determined to stay free. The old a2k with its energetic discussions and cultural clashes was an aberration, and that aberration has been fixed.

Brandon9000 wrote:

First, I note that you consider this little dig to be more interesting than the thread topic.

No, they're about on the same level.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I would think that, as a lawyer, you would be interested in defending the ideals expressed in the Constitution.

The constitution says that congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about internet message boards. If the government tells you to shut up, that's raises a constitutional issue; if I tell you to shut up, that doesn't.

My point is that the philosophy underlying the Constitution is that minority opinions should have equal access to expression.

My point is that the philosophy underlying the Constitution is that minority opinions should have equal access to expression.

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that the philosophy underlying the Constitution is that minority opinions should have equal access to expression.

A2K has taken the same sort of "open marketplace of ideas" approach to free speech that Justice Holmes alluded to in Abrams v. US. Users have always been able to ignore posts -- we just now have a mechanism for doing it. Likewise, users have always been able to express their disapproval of certain posts or posters -- we just now have a mechanism for doing that too.

I haven't noticed a marked dropoff in the number of conservative posters on this forum. Some have left, but no more than the number of liberals. I attribute that mostly to the change in the format, not to any change in attitudes. If there has been any increased hostility toward conservatives, I haven't seen it. And if conservative posts are getting more "thumbs down" than liberal ones, maybe that has more to do with the generally poor quality of the conservatives on this forum rather than any animosity toward right-wing views in general.

huh, hello, the majority does not have the ability to prevent or make it difficult for minority opinions to be expressed.

You can express them all you want.
We just don't have to read it.... much like the last a2k.

Did you know we can all change our sorting methods?
And that the voting is not affecting Google?

Are you just pouting that your minority opinions aren't popular?
yea, that wouldn't be minority opinions if they were popular, right?

Face it, no one is stopping you from expressing your opinions and anyone who wants to find them or hear them is doing so.

The so-called "majority" are individuals who can vote their preference. You can express any opinion you wish on a2k or most any place else. That people can choose to listen or not listen is "their" choice - isn't it?

Do you not believe that people will, with significant frequency, vote down posts merely because they disagree with the ideas expressed?