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

It's funny that once we brought it up, you find the article. Yet before, you never advocated for ISIS content not being removed on social media and only selectively chose a certain group to advocate for.

Again you only care based on your ideolgical biases rather than principled values on free speech.

 

This whole Cancel culture thing has existed for decades from heavy metal music to video games. Is it a coincidence that right leaning "Libertarians" suddenly care now?

And now you want to invoke anti-trust laws that exist to not stifle competition and twist it into a mechanism to prevent private companies from expressing the way they want to display their brand image which was never the intent of anti-trust.

Again, if you want to mitigate the power of companies like Facebook and Google because of their rampant vertical and horizontal integration swilling up smaller companies on the regular, you know the actual purpose of anti-trust, then I'm all for it.

But because you are butt hurt that these companies want to display a brand image of their own free will that goes against your ideology, I and most posters here have no sympathy for your cause.

Your libertarianism only goes as far as your cultural right wing beliefs hence why when Black people fight against authorarian police culture that disproportionately effects them you treat it as a joke along with posters like J.R.

 

regardless, whose decision is it to make what content should be allowed on a privately owned platform? I am not comfortable with the gov't interfering with private companies rules unless they pertain to protected classes.

Put aside beliefs for a second, how on earth would you execute anything if you had gov't oversight on content. would ever publisher now have the same set of rules and who would determine what's a violation? The courts? the amount of endless litigation would be extreme. Just imagine if the moderators of this forum had to now apply gov't standards to EVERY SINGLE POST.

If I curse you out and call you names, is that protected speech now and the forum has to accept it? It just opens up so much complexity.

 

It would be a lot easier to take O's commitment to free speech seriously if he included in his examples clear, current cases of state actors attempting to suppress through legislation speech they find offensive. Instead, it seems he's fixated on the actions of people who irritate him that have figured out how to turn the levers of capitalism to their advantage. And, as fchowd has pointed out, his failure to acknowledge or grapple with the profound damage and danger to our democracy caused by Trump's successful attempts to delegitimize the presidential election calls into question O's ability to objectively evaluate the real implications of his ideas around free speech.

 

True. We should let the free market make the decisions.

 

Yes lets look at what Poland really thinks about free speech.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...s-leaders-hands-off-free-press-301227652.html
U.S. Journalists to Poland's Leaders: Hands Off Free Press
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- National Press Club leaders, in a statement Friday, urged Poland's government to halt a recent campaign to undermine independent news organizations there.

The anti-press effort by Poland's right-wing government follows the lead of a largely completed push in Hungary to ensure its citizens only see state propaganda in print and on their TV and computer screens.

The two countries have slipped toward authoritarianism after representing, in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, a source of hope for freedom and democracy in the region as they emerged from under communism.

On Feb. 10, major news organizations in Poland shut down all coverage and programming for 24 hours in protest of a recently proposed tax on news organizations. Nearly four dozen of the leading news companies' executives, in a letter this week to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, called the tax "extortion" of the free press.

The tax proposal follows a December purchase by a government-controlled company of Polska Press, effectively ensuring government control of 20 of 24 regional newspapers, according to a Thursday report by a group led by the International Press Institute.

The Polish government has also used licensing and antitrust regulations to undermine news organizations' financial health, the report found.

In Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index of 180 countries, Poland has dropped from 18th in 2015--the year the right-wing Law and Justice, or PiS, party came to power--to 162nd place in 2020.

In Hungary--ranked 89th in the world in 2020 in press freedom-- the government has virtually completed a takeover of its news industry. One of that country's last independent radio stations was forced off the air just this week when its license was not renewed.

In Washington on Thursday, Sen. Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he is "deeply concerned" about the plight of the press in Poland.

National Press Club President Lisa Nicole Matthews and National Press Club Journalism Institute President Angela Greiling Keane issued the following statement on Friday:

"Press freedom is under assault around the world, and the situation in Eastern Europe is particularly distressing. As Hungary all but extinguishes independent journalism, Poland is quickly following suit. Most recently, the Polish government's effort to strangle a free press under the guise of revenue-raising is in reality an attempt to sap the vitality of independent journalism. A vibrant news industry is an essential part of any democracy, because it enables people to rule themselves with facts, not falsehoods. Poland's government, like governments everywhere, must do what is good for its people: stop hampering a free press."

Founded in 1908, the National Press Club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists. The Club has 3,000 members representing nearly every major news organization and is a leading voice for press freedom in the United States and around the world.

The National Press Club Journalism Institute, the Club's non-profit affiliate, promotes an engaged global citizenry through an independent and free press and equips journalists with skills and standards to inform the public in ways that inspire civic engagement.

 

Also when you enter someone's cyber property you agree to terms of service just like when you enter someone's house you agree to their house rules. If you don't like it you can always go back to your own house or someone else's.

 

Hoping some 4th quarter Wall tank commanding magic happens.

 

I just don't see how you can make the case of a private corporation removing someone's post or banning someone as a violation of their free speech. To demonstrate that, you'd have to clearly show that this person has no other means of getting their speech out and that they were silenced. Trump being from Twitter did not make impinged him from getting his message out and running the GOP for instance. And never has the case been made that someone being banned from a platform was a violation of their free speech until the last political cycle.

I was banned on here for expressing very controversial opinions over 10 years ago. I didn't even think to argue that my free speech rights were violated, but under the current thinking, I could indeed. I literally got banned for expressing antagonistic political views and making personal attacks - which prevented from expressing views on other topics ranging from politics to the Rockets. Who makes that judgement? It seems to me that it should be made by the proprietor of the site, not a 3rd party agency that is could potentially be biased in different ways. More darkly, I was banned from the Donald for simply correcting false statements made on the forum without even making any statement about personal politics or making a personal attack. That is clearly censorship by the new definition being circulated by the right in their grievance against social media companies.

Ultimately, it's just hard to make the case that someone who is banned from a platform doesn't have an outlet for their message. No one's voice is being suppressed if they violate FB TOS and can't post anymore. I disagree with a lot of what FB's censors on both sides, and I think Twitter went to far in banning Trump permanently. But I still think it's critically important that private organizations are free to set up their own rules of what content can or can not be published so long as those rules do not violate existing statues around discrimination based on age, sex, race, religion, or disability. I just think it opens up a dangerous pandora's box that can create a monster of a mess from not just social media, but to even sporting events where athletes may not stand for the anthem or fans may shout racist remarks.

The best way to encourage open dialogue and fight cancel culture is to encourage open dialogue and fight cancel culture. There are tools to push back on organizations that overreact to small things. I agree it's getting ridiculous but the way to address it is not some Orwellian scheme to have the gov't step in and force it, but rather to promote tolerance of ideas and individuals even if they say controversial things. We have to move away from the solution to people saying offensive things is to fire them and instead move towards elaboration and discussion. Having racist views doesn't make someone evil for instance, just ignorant. Gandhi had racist views as a young man but changed as he grew older and wisers - and there's no rason to think any human is capable of change - he certainly felt that.

 

This is again why it's so ironic to see people claim things like "Gov. Ron DeSantis is being CENSORED!" because YouTube isn't carrying his press forum and then post a link from NBC or some of news service about that story.

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are very big but they aren't the end all and be all of social media. Also many of these claims of censorship are by elected officials like DeSantis, or the Prime Minister of Poland who have access to many other forums of getting their message out including state sources. For people like Trump who are still major media figures and have access to many methods of getting their message out. We often see many of these figures claim they are being "silenced" as they appear on Fox News and in Tweets.

 

Don't you think there is a big difference between Trump being banned on twitter and an oppressive regime shutting down a critical newspaper?

 

If I trashed Clutch, Hakeem and the Houston Rockets would it be censoring my free speech if Clutch chose to ban me from the BBS? Could I not continue to call Clutch, Hakeem and the Rockets whatever the **** I wanted around friends and family, other forms of social media, my own blog if I even had one, my own website and my own created social media platform even? Would Clutch really be trampling my free speech by banning me for being hateful?

 

@Os Trigonum

@basso

 

Over time apparently "free speech" which used to mean "not fearing government prosecution for your speech" now means "right to have your voice bullhorned on someone else's property"

I wonder if that means if CNN or Fox News doesn't let me go on their network and express my views, am I being denied my free speech?