Question and speech

Closing and Preventing Debate Principles of Debate and Undebatable Motions In are explained the necessary steps preliminary to debate namely, that when no business is pending a member shall rise and address the chair by his title, and be recognized by the chair as having obtained the floor; and that the member shall then make a motion which, after being seconded, shall be stated by the chair, who shall then ask, "Are you ready for the question? No member shall speak more than twice during the same day to the same question only once on an appealnor longer than ten minutes at one time, without leave of the assembly; and the question upon granting the leave shall be decided by a two-thirds vote without debate.

Question and speech

Question and speech

Platforms, Speech And Truth: I'm about to talk about an issue that has a lot of nuance in it and no clear "good" answers -- and it's also one that many people have already made up their minds on one way or the other, and both sides will probably not really like at least part of what I have to say.

You get to live your own life. But, at the very least, I hope people can acknowledge that sometimes issues are more complex than they appear and having a nuanced discussion can be helpful, and I hope people can appreciate that. This is a long post, so I'm going to provide a TLDR at the top right under this, in factbut as noted above, a part of the reason it's long is because it's a complex issue and there's a lot of nuance.

So I strongly advise that if your initial response to my TLDR version is "fuck you, you're so wrong because Internet sites have every right in the world to kick Question and speech off their platforms, and there's no legal or ethical problem with that.

No one's free speech is being censored. That said, we should be at least a bit concerned about the idea that giant internet platforms get to be some sort of arbiter of what speech is okay and what speech is not, and how that can impact society more generally. But there are possible solutions to this, even if none are perfect and some may be difficult to implement, and we should explore those more thoroughly, rather than getting into screaming fights over who should or shouldn't be allowed to use various internet platforms.

Speech at Chicago, Illinois | Teaching American History

So, this post was originally going to be about the choices that Facebook and other internet platforms make concerning who is allowed on their platforms, specifically in response to an interview that Mark Zuckerberg gave back in July, in which he noted that he didn't think Facebook should remove Holocaust deniers from its platform, saying: I find that deeply offensive.

I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. But it's a complex, nuanced topic, and I was trying to write a complex nuanced post. And just as I was getting somewhere with it This created another furor in the other direction, with people talking about deplatforming, censorship, free speech, monopoly power, and policing truth.

And then when Twitter chose not to follow the lead of those other platforms, we were right back to a big furor about keeping hateful wackjob conspiracy theory assholes on your platform, and whether or not you should want to do that.

Chances are no matter what I say is going to piss off pretty much everyone, but let's do the stupid thing and try to address a complex and extremely nuanced topic on the internet, with unflagging optimism that maybe just maybe people on the internet will for a moment at least hold back their kneejerk reactions of "good" or "bad" and try to think through the issues.

France: Toward Total Submission to Islam, Destruction of Free Speech

Let's start with a few basic principles: Whether you like it or not and you should actually like itcorporations do get rights, and that includes their First Amendment rights to have their sites appear how they want, along with deciding who not to associate with.

On top of that, again, despite what you may have heard online about Section of the CDA, platforms not only have the right to moderate what's on their platform without legal liability, they are actually encouraged to do so by that law.

Indeed, if anyone knows this, it's Alex Jones, since Infowars' own terms of service makes it clear that Infowars can boot anyone it wants: It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.

One of the rare cases where I can say that, hey, that Alex Jones guy is absolutely right about that and we'll leave aside the hypocrisy about him now flipping out about other sites applying those same rules on him. A separate point that also is important, and gets regularly ignored, is that "banning" someone from these platforms often has the opposite impact of what was intended.

Question and speech

Depending on the situation, it might not quite be a "Streisand Effect" situation, but it does create a martyr situation, which supporters will automatically use to double down on their belief that they're in the right position, and people are trying to "suppress the truth" or whatever.

Also, sometimes it's useful to have "bad" speech out in the open, where people can track it, understand it Indeed, often hiding that bad speech not only lets it fester, but dulls our ability to counter it, respond to it and understand who is spreading such info and how widely.

So, really, the question comes down to whether or not these platforms should be removing these kinds of accounts.Apology by Plato, part of the Internet Classics Archive. Commentary: Quite a few comments have been posted about Apology.

Download: A 58k text-only version is available for download. Apology by Plato, part of the Internet Classics Archive. Primary Resources - free worksheets, lesson plans and teaching ideas for primary and elementary teachers.

This page contrasts extracts from two accounts of William Wilberforce's famous abolition speech, delivered in the House of Commons on Tuesday 12 May In the eighteenth century, unlike today, there was no Offical Record of speeches made to Parliament.

Instead, newspapers recorded their own. Full text of the (Fourth) Edition of Robert's Rules of Order, with index and keyword search, lesson outlines and Plan for Study of Parliamentary Law.

Florida Shooting Survivor Not Given Scripted Question But Pulled For Speech At CNN Town Hall, Network Source Claims.

Executive Speech Coach - How to Master Question-and-Answer Sessions