Attack on Cpaptalk, Sleepyhead, Mark Watkins by Psychology Today

[jnk...]

Its interesting that this "David" person hasn't chimed in on the last poster who listed some of those credentials he's so enamored with, but said more or less the same thing most of us have been saying.

I assume he's been locked out, just as I have been.

You've been wanting to get banned for a while now... 'grats!

You did it with style and panache.

Thanks!

Eh, I've been kicked out of better places.

I basically went there to get kicked out anyway.

And hey, once it all goes to hats and bats, somebody has to wear the cuffs afterward. Might as well be me, right?

[chunkyfrog]

I will bring you a cake.
Don't eat it--the file will break your teeth.

[Lucyhere]

I assume he's been locked out, just as I have been.

If you get "locked out", this place will be in the dumpster. Wait... maybe that's not such a bad idea, then you can start your own apnea meeting place.

[jnk...]

I assume he's been locked out, just as I have been.

If you get "locked out", this place will be in the dumpster. Wait... maybe that's not such a bad idea, then you can start your own apnea meeting place.

Thanks! But Johnny's place works fine for me. My corner table in the back is usually available. A few people pretend to laugh at my jokes when I mouth off. And a few here are even willing to give subtle hints when my opinions might be headed too far off the rails. What more could I ask for?

[Midwest_non_sleeper]

Dr. Breus' idea that people should not be able to manage their own CPAP therapy sinks like a Led Zeppelin, rightfully so.

You missed the part where he expressed his IDEA as FACT which makes it FALSE.
Falsehood is not protected speech. Try crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater and try to make that excuse stick.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with criminalizing speech that stands a very high chance of inciting panic, injuries and death. That is, unless there is an actual fire, then you're free to yell until your heart's content.

Because your metaphor is very popular to use, let us examine it. It was first used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919, in a decision that delineated the protection of false speech against false and dangerous speech. There is a difference. False speech is protected, but false speech that is dangerous is not. Additionally, speech that is dangerous, but true, is protected.

You didn't even get the metaphor right anyway. His original words were: "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic". People have paraphrased it to usually add in the word "crowded", while simultaneously omitting the word "falsely", which is exactly what you did.

So yes, "false" speech is inherently protected, but there are a few cases that examine it further.

Edit: Sorry, I've been busy installing new porch columns on my house. Busy work. What was this thread about again?

[prodigyplace]

This thread was about falsely causing panic among CPAP users who self program.

[ChicagoGranny]

This thread was about falsely causing panic among CPAP users who self program.

It is important to note that the panic was NOT about these users' CPAP therapy. It was about the damage the Breuss article will do to uninitiated CPAP users and candidates.

[jnk...]

This thread was about falsely causing panic among CPAP users who self program.

It is important to note that the panic was NOT about these users' CPAP therapy. It was about the damage the Breuss article will do to uninitiated CPAP users and candidates.

I believe you both may be saying the same thing with slightly different words.

The thread was about how Dr. B.'s article could cause panic among self-titrators. I think you are both saying that.

[ChicagoGranny]

We are in violent agreement.

[zonker]

We are in violent agreement.

datalaughing.gif

[RonS]

He can give his opinion and it is protected speech.
The remedy for bad speech is more speech.
You can sue him if you feel you have been defamed.
You can sue him if you feel you relied on his opinion and it harmed you.
You can sue him if you don't like the way he spells Bruce.
Whether you win, lose or have engaged tortious frivolity yourself is another matter entirely.
The government is unlikely to prevail in an action taken against someone for uttering their opinion, unless they can prove is it done with the intent of harming someone, and the bar for that is likely "imminent danger" as in an incitement to violence case.

Anyone possessing the skills to self analyze and direct their own pap therapy is bright enough to read the article and the comments and make decisions for themselves, which is, after all, also the whole point of this forum as well.

Ciao!

[Midwest_non_sleeper]

He can give his opinion and it is protected speech.
The remedy for bad speech is more speech.
You can sue him if you feel you have been defamed.
You can sue him if you feel you relied on his opinion and it harmed you.
You can sue him if you don't like the way he spells Bruce.
Whether you win, lose or have engaged tortious frivolity yourself is another matter entirely.
The government is unlikely to prevail in an action taken against someone for uttering their opinion, unless they can prove is it done with the intent of harming someone, and the bar for that is likely "imminent danger" as in an incitement to violence case.

Anyone possessing the skills to self analyze and direct their own pap therapy is bright enough to read the article and the comments and make decisions for themselves, which is, after all, also the whole point of this forum as well.

Ciao!

Eminently correct.

[jnk...]

That which may be legally true or politically true regarding officially stated government positions about actual public spaces in any country can quickly and easily become irrelevant or confusingly complicated in practice with online commercial-social-media-related judgements that are made by the owners of the Internet sites themselves.

The line between "allowing" certain speech and "promoting" certain speech is now highly unclear, especially when it comes to owners deciding for themselves what some others arriving at their sites may consider "unsafe" or "misleading" or "hateful" on those sites that are privately owned but that are advertised as being public spaces of a sort.

So it is no longer so much a matter of principles of what is legal in any one country in public spaces that dictates censorship but more a matter of what is internationally expedient for the businesses that own the platforms that now dictates the extent and limits of free expression when it comes to the Internet. Governments don't decide. Laws don't decide. Site owners decide.

For example, one person's expressions of a personal moral position or thought can easily lead to censorship and banning on a site as another person's "hate speech." And no government can fix that fact without asserting heavier control over it. Which no one wants in practice.

In other words, it is no longer about what speech a government passively allows and does not interfere with but it is about what rights to speech a government can actively protect in spaces that are commercial in nature. That is what no one wants to discuss out loud at the moment. There is, in fact, no truly public space on the Internet unless each person only posts on his own site that he alone "owns." And that is not how things are done in mainstream social media. Even when it is, links on larger sites become the speech.

It is all getting turned on its head these days because we are all in mid-somersault.

End of soapbox rant.

[ChicagoGranny]

-.JPG

[jnk...]

Oddly enough, I am once again able to post at PT. I just posted thanks to Dr. Woods for that great post.

It isn't deep. It's subtle. There is NO actual enforceable legal right for anyone to be able to participate in any market of ideas on the Internet, since proprietors decide who may participate and what may be said based on personal policies at any given "location." Therefore there is no actual designated area for a free market of ideas with any inherent rights of any sort on the Internet, despite the theoretical ideal some may believe in.

If someone lets you in the door, speak the truth as best you can with as much clarity as possible to give people the opportunity to hear it. But then be willing to suffer the full consequences for having spoken up.