[NCAC] PRIVATE CENSORSHIP – FIGHTING SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

and reading you respond for the umpteenth time with the red herring and straw man dance reminds me that "many people" need to re-read the first two posts of the thread. Although I doubt many of those people ever read them in the first place:

blog posting by the National Coalition Against Censorship:

https://ncac.org/news/blog/private-...pression-of-speech-by-non-governmental-actors

PRIVATE CENSORSHIP – FIGHTING SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

Government censorship in the Internet age has been a consistent focal point for free speech advocates. Recent examples of censorship by the American government can be egregious, including the curtailment of First Amendment rights through mass surveillance, overregulation of disfavored speech, criminal prosecution, and outright bans on books, movies, and websites. However, the First Amendment has always provided a potential legal recourse through the judicial system in cases of illegal government censorship. What happens, however, when censorship occurs not at the hands of a government actor, but through the application of policies imposed by powerful, private persons or corporations? What recourse is available in the case of “private censorship”?

Scout Willis, the daughter of actors Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, recently received substantial press coverage when she walked topless through the streets of New York City in an effort to bring attention to Instagram’s censorship of women’s nipples. Willis used the hashtag #FreetheNipple as part of her Twitter-based protest of Instagram’s policies. The hashtag, as well as an upcoming film of the same name, is the brainchild of filmmaker Lina Esco. The photo-sharing social media website has imposed a policy of censoringnot only images that it deems inappropriate, but offensive hashtags as well. For example, Singer Rihanna has been on the receiving end of Instagram’s censorship policies and has had her account suspended for nudity. Instagram later entirely disabled the account, but claimed it was a mistake made by one of their “automated systems.”

Instagram isn’t the only social network under fire for its censorship policies: Facebook has routinely incensed users with its censorship of not only images of breastfeeding, but political posts and pages, as well.

The banking and financial sector routinely delivers its own potent dose of “private censorship” as well. In recent months, adult film stars have reported having their bank accounts systematically closed by JP Morgan Chase, for no other reason than their connection with adult entertainment. This flavor of private censorship however, may be more insidious than it first appeared. Imposing censorship through denial of banking services may actually have been motived by the U.S. Department of Justice, which created a leaked program dubbed “Operation Choke Point,” designed to pressure banks into denying service to certain disfavored industries.

Payment processors PayPal and WePay have also been known to shut down accounts of bloggers involved in the adult entertainment industry. Visa and MasterCard have historically imposed higher standards for adult websites for payment processing as well, including higher-than-normal transaction fees, penalties, and charge-back rates. American Express categorically prohibits its cards to be used for things like adult websites or WikiLeaks donations. Content restrictions imposed on adult websites by merchant banks and processors are well-known to the site operators, although the rules are rarely made public, and can change without notice. Credit card companies are under increasing pressure to become the Internet’s content police, and some have recently given in to pressure to stop processing payments for “mugshot” removal websites.

Even Google; one of the most vocal crusaders for Internet freedom, appears to have hopped aboard the “private censorship” bandwagon, at least in terms of the parts of the Internet it deems “offensive.” Google has lately made waves for prohibiting adult material on its powerful advertising network; AdWords. Although Google claims the policies are not new, many in the adult industry disagree. There has been much speculation that pressure from conservative groups, especially Morality in Media, caused Google’s sudden crackdown on adult advertisements. Although Google has refused to confirm the connection, this alleged kowtowing to a family values group would be shocking from the search engine giant, which previously claimed it was strongly committed to free expression. Additionally, it has been reported that Google has pushed adult content down in its organic search results, and even allows the first page of results for adult-oriented search terms to be dominated by less relevant, non-adult links.

These instances of private censorship, and many like them, are not subject to First Amendment protection since they are undertaken at the behest of corporate directors, and not governmental agencies. But the results can often be even more devastating. With no constitutional restrictions to rein them in, giant, multi-billion dollar companies end up making critical decisions on what content the general public can see, read, and hear – especially online. The corporations making these decisions are now more powerful than most countries – at least when it comes to being the gatekeepers of communication. The censorial power wielded by social networking platforms like Twitter and Facebook is readily confirmed by the knee-jerk reaction by governments under national revolt to immediately shut them down, although the effort is not always successful.

If the government is involved with, or encourages censorship by private parties, such as with Operation Choke Hold, legal remedies may be available under federal civil rights conspiracy laws. However, members of the general public are often confused about where their constitutional First Amendment rights end and where unrestrained “private censorship” begins. Part of this confusion may result from the ability to invoke the First Amendment defenses against defamation claims involving purely private parties. Some “SLAPP suit” statutes, again governing private disputes, are also grounded in First Amendment principles, thus adding to the confusion. However, these are narrow exceptions to the general rule that prevents individuals from relying on First Amendment rights when they are censored by private entities. Powerful online media entities like Google, Facebook and Twitter can, and do, routinely censor speech that they find offensive or which violates their acceptable use polices. Application of these policies may be arbitrary, inconsistent, or even discriminatory. But for now, the actions remain legal and constitutional.
more​

 

conclusion

The good news is that overly-restrictive policies by private entities create opportunities for others who are willing to permit the activity, or take some risk. Notably, when virtual monopolies begin to develop, such as the Visa/MasterCard merchant banking system, Google’s search engine rankings and ad policies, or Facebook/Twitter social networking platforms, dissenters are often left with few alternatives. However, the consumer’s voice still matters. Upstarts like KIK messenger, or Tumblr photo sharing system, are often created to fill the void created by restrictive policies implemented by larger competitors. Even the once invincible merchant banking system is sweating bullets as consumers take to virtual currencies like BitCoin to make purchases that might otherwise be unavailable due to policies imposed by conglomerate financial institutions. The Internet, it seems, remains quite adept at routing around censorship – even the private kind.

So what’s the public’s answer to the growing problem of private censorship? Many have struggled with this very question, and thus far, no perfect solution has been proposed. Imposing First Amendment restraints on private businesses would be antithetical to America’s capitalist, free-market system, and could lead to greater problems than it solves. With a growing number of companies willing to deviate from the conservative policies of their perhaps larger and more established competitors, consumers have become empowered to choose services that share their views on freedom of expression. Some of those consumers will go on to form their own businesses, mobile applications, websites – even currencies – that serve the online users who were flippantly discarded by their predecessors. For now, the best and likely most effective response to private censorship is to “vote with your dollars, and do business with like-minded online service providers.

#2Os Trigonum, Mar 8, 2021​

 

third one for good measure

ib4 anyone jumps on the old "conservative talking points" knee jerk reaction.

Here are the groups that make up the NCAC:

Coalition Members[edit]
These are the coalition members according to the official National Coalition Against Censorship website:

Actors' Equity Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Association of University Professors, American Association of University Women, American Booksellers for Free Expression, American Civil Liberties Union, American Ethical Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Jewish Committee, American Library Association, American Literary Translators Association, American Orthopsychiatric Association, American Society of Journalists & Authors, Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Catholics for Choice, Children's Literature Association, College Art Association, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, The Creative Coalition, Directors Guild of America, Dramatists Guild of America, Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, Educational Book & Media Association, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Free Speech Coalition, International Literacy Association, Lambda Legal, Modern Language Association, National Center for Science Education, National Communication Association, National Council for the Social Studies, National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Teachers of English, National Education Association, National Youth Rights Association, The Newspaper Guild/CWA, PEN America, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Project Censored, SAG-AFTRA, Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S., Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators, Student Press Law Center, Union for Reform Judaism, Union of Democratic Intellectuals, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, United Methodist Church, United Methodist Communications, Women's American ORT, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Writers Guild of America, East, Writers Guild of America, West.

#3Os Trigonum, Mar 8, 2021
​

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-m...ial-media-board-11649197092?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Elon Musk’s Hopeful Twitter Feed
Could he show there’s a market solution to Big Tech censorship?
By The Editorial Board
April 5, 2022 6:40 pm ET

Elon Musk often makes news with his Twitter posts, and rarely more than on Tuesday in confirming he has bought a 9.2% stake in the social-media firm. He’s now the single largest shareholder and has earned a seat on the board. Mr. Musk hasn’t disclosed his agenda for the company, but for now we’ll consider this a hopeful moment for political speech and debate at America’s increasingly censorious tech giants.

“Looking forward to working with [Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal ] & Twitter board to make significant improvements to Twitter in coming months,” Mr. Musk tweeted Tuesday to his more than 80 million followers on the site. The cofounder of ventures ranging from Tesla, to SpaceX, to the Boring Company has frequently expressed disdain for Twitter’s heavy-handed censorship, which the company uses to silence prominent voices (e.g., Donald Trump ) and stifle views that disagree with the prevailing progressive consensus.

“Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy,” he tweeted last month. Mr. Musk has publicly flirted with creating a rival platform, but the barriers to success in that business are high. Perhaps he thinks he can accomplish more in the room where censorship happens.

Twitter executives appear cautiously open to his views, with Mr. Agrawal noting his new board colleague is “both a passionate believer and intense critic of the service which is exactly what we need.” One test will be if Twitter keeps making decisions like censoring the Babylon Bee, the conservative satirical website, for “misgendering” a Biden official (as The Hill put it).

Big Tech is becoming more aware of the perils—political, financial and legal—of serving as handmaiden to the woke speech police, but its executives remain too complicit or too afraid to do anything about it. They are courting a political backlash.

Mr. Musk is familiar with controversy on Twitter, as his tweets have sometimes aroused the attention of Washington financial regulators over disclosure rules. But in an age when too many CEOs lack the courage to express open support for core American principles, it would be refreshing if Mr. Musk’s intention is to stake some of his own wealth in the cause of promoting political free speech.

No doubt he also hopes to make money by improving the platform, which is 16 years old and growing slowly. The stock market was certainly keen on the Musk news, sending Twitter shares up 27% on Monday and another 2% on Tuesday.

Mr. Musk would do an additional public service if he shows that Big Tech censorship has a free-market solution. Politicians on the left and right are demanding a bigger role for government in regulating speech on social media, whether with more bureaucratic controls or antitrust suits that break up the companies. Republicans in particular should know better than to empower bureaucrats, and maybe Mr. Musk can show them a better way.

Appeared in the April 6, 2022, print edition.






​

 

https://reason.com/2022/04/06/elon-...sing-but-not-a-permanent-fix-for-free-speech/

Elon Musk's Twitter Stake Is Promising, but Not a Permanent Fix for Free Speech
Protections for open communication require more than the commitment of a single person.
J.D. TUCCILLE | 4.6.2022 7:00 AM

As social media has devolved from a free speech zone to a censorious minefield (my take) or a cesspool of misinformation from which people should be protected (according to people who are wrong) or just a shitty-algorithm-driven mess (probably true), the standard response to critics has been: build an alternative! A fair number of alternatives now exist, some more successful than others. But now tech billionaire Elon Musk puts forward a new approach: buy a stake in an existing platform and champion a culture of free speech. This may well be a boon for open discourse in the short term, but a permanent cure for intolerance requires more.

"Elon Musk took a 9.2% stake in Twitter Inc. to become the platform's biggest shareholder, a week after hinting he might shake up the social media industry," Bloomberg Newsreported on Monday. Musk also gained a seat on the company's board of directors.

The "shake up" refers to hints Musk dropped about starting a new social media platform that would use open-source algorithms and have a stronger dedication to free speech than much-criticized mainstream platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and, especially, Twitter. Tellingly, though, Musk not only became Twitter's largest shareholder, but before the Schedule13G disclosing the acquisition was revealed, he asked Twitter users whether they thought "Twitter rigorously adheres" to free speech. About 70 percent of self-selected respondents said "no."

Among those endorsing Musk's take on Twitter's need for change is, apparently, Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, who retweeted a related poll about the importance of basing the social media platform on open-source algorithms. He stepped down as Twitter's CEO last year and will leave the company's board next month. Dorsey took flack during his tenure as CEO, but there were signs that he was a free speech advocate navigating conflicting demands from government, politicized staff, and mutually loathing factions in a divided society.

"The pressure comes from both above and below. You've got the United States Senate basically saying: 'Nice little social network you got there. Real shame for anything to happen to it,'" tech entrepreneur David Stack told Bari Weiss last week. "From below, you've got the employees and the tweet mobs and basically forming these boycotts and subjecting the management of the company to pressure."

Dorsey criticized his own company's suppression of the since-verified Hunter Biden laptop story, long resisted his own employees' calls to ban former President Donald Trump from the platform, and told Congress that neither tech companies nor government should be "arbiters of truth." His departure was not a good sign for a service that once touted itself as "the free speech wing of the free speech party."

"Anyone who harbors concerns that social media have already grown too intolerant of dissenting opinions—too inclined to silence viewpoints that depart from liberal orthodoxy—should be worried about Dorsey leaving," Reason's Robby Soave wrote at the time.

Dorsey now regrets the centralization of the internet and champions Bluesky, a project intended to restore the ability for "people to freely interact and create content, without a single intermediary." Platforms built on such a decentralized approach would lack kill switches or the ability to turn public panics into policy; users would exercise control over their own experiences.

But one problem that alternative platforms have faced aside from public pressure and commercial shunning is attracting users. While some half-assed attempts (cough Parler cough) at building new social media platforms have made the existential mistake of relying on services provided by companies hostile to their missions, it is possible to build an independent platform that's relatively self-contained.

"Over the past four years we have been banned from multiple cloud hosting providers and were told that if we didn't like it we should 'build our own,'" Gab, a Twitter competitor favored by the nationalist right announced in 2020. "So, that's exactly what we did."

Since then, Gab has expanded into video and now is working on an advertising service and payment systems. But, while successful, it caters to a niche community that shares its very particular worldview. That, I'm happy to say, is not all of us.

For many people hoping for a renewed "free speech wing" commitment at a larger platform shared by people of multiple points of view, Musk's large stake in Twitter and his presence on its board comes as a promising sign. A self-proclaimed "free-speech absolutist" and critic of politicized environmental, social, and governance standards for investing and business management, Musk is already sending a message to the tech industry, to Twitter staffers, and to the censorious multitude, whatever his intentions.

"Will Musk now agitate for Twitter to alter its policy on moderating content in the name of freer speech?" The New York Times speculated on Monday. "Will he push for Twitter to open up its algorithm, which the company's co-founder and former C.E.O. Jack Dorsey appeared to support last week? (Musk and Dorsey are friendly.)"

But the problem with any movement based around one person is that the whole movement is only as good as that person and shares his or her flaws and vulnerabilities. Musk is already at war with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which isn't shy about weaponizing its power against opponents. His Twitter move could draw further regulatory attentionand potentially hobble his efforts. Musk also faces accusations of retaliation against critics within his company and in the outside world. Whatever the truth of those claims, it's easy to see that the clout he wields at Twitter might just as easily be wielded against free speech as in its favor.

For now, Elon Musk's acquisition of a large stake in Twitter and a board seat allowing him to influence the social media company's policies is a welcome temporary victory for free speech advocates. If nothing else, it's a reminder to the self-righteous set that their dominance isn't inevitable and that calls for tolerance of dissent are, once again, coming from inside their own institutions.

But the long-term solution for protecting free speech can't lie in the hands of one person. We need alternatives that cater to different audiences and aren't reliant on the good will of their critics. We should encourage decentralization that lets people control their own experience and eliminates the ability of any government or pressure group to muzzle those deemed unworthy. And, most importantly, we have to encourage a culture of free speech that values protections for dissent without regard for our agreement or disagreement with other people's views.


​

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-m...speech-11649362830?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s

10 Things for Elon Musk to Do at Twitter
The social-media giant has a free-speech problem. Its newest board member can help fix it.
By Bradley A. Smith
April 7, 2022 6:47 pm ET

I wouldn’t dream of telling Elon Musk, who recently became Twitter’s top shareholder, how to turn a profit. But I do know something about free speech. If Mr. Musk is serious about making the social-media behemoth a force for free speech, here are 10 things he can do:

1. Leave more content up. Twitter has rules about posts, and the bulk of enforcement is done through artificial intelligence. The algorithms err on the side of taking down material that might violate Twitter rules. Instead, they should err on the side of leaving questionable material up until there has been human review.

2. More aggressively screen complaints. Currently, there is too much bad-faith reporting done for the purpose of getting controversial, but legitimate, content taken down. For every 10 content moderators tasked with taking down content, hire a content defender, whose job is to advocate for keeping or putting content back up. Err on the side of speech, not censorship.

3. Create an easy-to-use, rapid, transparent appeals process for takedowns of material, and especially for banned or suspended accounts.

4. Stop caving in to organized campaigns to remove particular speakers. Twitter doesn’t have to take sides in the culture wars. Say nothing, and let the controversy subside.

5. Don’t respond to overt requests from government officials to take down content. When government officials covertly request content removal, expose them, and ignore the request. When government officials tell you to “watch out” for particular misinformation, be skeptical—of both their intentions and their accuracy.

6. Eliminate the “fact-checking” program. It is biased and, because people know it is biased, has had the opposite of its intended effect. It has destroyed Twitter’s credibility.

7. Conduct an outside audit of Twitter’s policy of removing “false or misleading information” about Covid. In particular, ask: a) How much “misinformation” was removed that is now considered true?; b) What effect did removal have on the overall debate?; c) Did it prevent or delay correct information from reaching the public?; and d) Did removal actually stop the information’s spread? Use the knowledge gained to review other policies, and apologize where appropriate.

8. Review the “hateful conduct” policy to be sure that it isn’t squelching public discussion on contested issues, and change the policy where needed. For example, not every instance of or reference to “misgendering” should automatically be removed as hateful.

9. End the ban on political ads. Since 2019, Twitter has banned political ads. Not just ads from Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and other candidates, but any ad that discusses any issue, from climate change to gun rights to an ad promoting a local ballot measure. Low-cost ads on Twitter are a huge benefit to grass roots organizations. As Twitter is anything but a politics-free zone, it’s hard to see a downside to allowing political advertising on the same terms as commercial advertising.

10. Stop supporting congressional legislation that would reduce speech, such as the misnamed “Honest Ads Act.” Make the company an advocate for free speech, not censorship.

These steps would go a long way toward boosting Twitter’s image and, more important, making it a positive force for democracy—in Mr. Musk’s words, a true “public town square.”

Bradley Smith is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and author of “Unfree Speech.” He served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission in 2004.


​

 

“Hate Speech”: LinkedIn Disables Air Force Vet’s Account After Criticizing Loan Forgiveness
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/...s-account-after-criticizing-loan-forgiveness/

 

looks like the YouTube account of Frank James, the suspect in the NYC subway attack, has been terminated. For years he flourished as a YouTube personality, but apparently today his videos suddenly violated Youtube's Community Guidelines.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtl9pjnppooRbj_YssCKxsA

 

nope, simple descriptive reporting of the facts as I understand them. nothing more, nothing less