1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

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

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Mar 8, 2021.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    pretty much. at least the default position should be to err on the side of free speech
     
    ThatBoyNick likes this.
  2. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,162
    Likes Received:
    28,677
    I suspect the original question is
    Do Private actors/companies have the right to stifle it in their controlled spaces

    You cannot curse in my house.
    You cannot talk Trump in my house.
    etc
    etc
    Free Speech versus Free Enterprise/Capitalistic thought.

    Rocket River
     
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  3. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    Time Magazine correspondent obsesses over "tech bro obsession with free speech"

    https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/0...r-tech-bro-obsession-with-free-speech-n466018

    excerpt:

    Has anyone else noticed a growing obsession on the left these days wherein the government, the tech oligarchs, and a growing swath of mainstream media outlets have taken to openly mocking the idea of free speech? This was already a serious problem on Twitter and Facebook long before Elon Musk came along and appeared to light a fuse under the discussion, but it’s really kicked into high gear since then. One of the latest and most glaring examples of this disastrous trend can be found this week at Time Magazine, where correspondent Charlotte Alter has penned a piece with this sort of mockery embedded firmly in the title. Elon Musk and the Tech Bro Obsession with ‘Free Speech.’ If you’re not shocked and dismayed by the idea of a journalist putting the words Free Speech in scare quotes, I don’t know what to tell you. She goes on to use scare quotes around nearly every instance of the phrases Free Speech and Freedom of Speech throughout the entire article. And you don’t have to read very far into the article to discover her newly-found disdain for the idea.

    In the days since Musk agreed to terms on a deal to take Twitter private, nearly all of Musk’s tweets have been about freedom and censorship on the platform. Like: “By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.” Or: “Truth Social (terrible name) exists because Twitter censored free speech.” And: “the extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all.”

    Why does Musk care so much about this? Why would a guy who has pushed the boundaries of electric-vehicle manufacturing and plumbed the limits of commercial space flight care about who can say what on Twitter?

    “Freedom of speech” has become a paramount concern of the techno-moral universe. The issue has anchored nearly every digital media debate for the last two years, from the dustup over Joe Rogan at Spotify to vaccine misinformation on Facebook.

    Just take a moment to let that sink in. A journalist is seriously asking why Elon Musk (or anyone, really) should “care about who can say what on Twitter.” This is a woman whose ability to do her job independent of governmental intrusion rests squarely on the words the Founders enshrined in the very first entry of the bill of rights. And if we can infer anything from the order they chose to list those rights, there are two freedoms that ranked even higher than that of a free press. They are the freedoms of religion and speech.

    The author went out on Twitter herself (apparently without irony) to retweet the magazine’s efforts to defend her position.​

    more at the link

     
  4. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    Turley on the tech bro writer and free speech

    Time Columnist Denounces Free Speech as a White Man’s “Obsession”
    https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/...ounces-free-speech-as-a-white-mans-obsession/
     
  5. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/1...e-platform-president-trump-is-the-right-call/

    ACLU: "Elon Musk's Decision to Re-Platform President Trump Is the Right Call"

    EUGENE VOLOKH | 5.10.2022 7:16 PM

    A statement from the ACLU:

    You'd be hard-pressed to find a more steadfast opponent of Trump and his policies than the ACLU, but Elon Musk's decision to re-platform President Trump is the right call. When a handful of individuals possess so much power over the most important forums for political speech, they should exercise that power with restraint. If Trump violates the platform rules again, Twitter should first employ lesser penalties like removing the offending post—rather than banning a political figure.

    Like it or not, President Trump is one of the most important political figures in this country, and the public has a strong interest in hearing his speech. Indeed, some of Trump's most offensive tweets ended up being critical evidence in lawsuits filed against him and his administration. And we should know—we filed over 400 legal actions against him.




     
  6. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    Mainstream Political Argument Forbidden "in the Modern Public Square" of Facebook
    Sen. Marsha Blackburn's "Biological men have no place in women's sports" post was apparently blocked as "hate speech."

    https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/2...dden-in-the-modern-public-square-of-facebook/

    excerpt:

    Naturally, such blocking doesn't violate the First Amendment (which governs only governmental speech restrictions) or any federal law; and, to my knowledge, it wouldn't violate any state social media nondiscrimination rules, even apart from the question whether those rules are constitutional or preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 230: The Florida and Texas laws, for instance, seem to me to cover only material posted by residents of those states.

    Nonetheless, I don't think it's good for democracy that platforms with the reach and importance of Facebook (which the Supreme Court has characterized as "the modern public square") would purport to thus restrict the expression of opinions.

    And that's especially so given how mainstream the opinion is: A Gallup poll from May 2021, for instance, reports that 62% of U.S. adult respondents took the view that "transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender" (34% took the view that they "should be able to play on sports teams that match their current gender identity"). I realize that these measurements are always imprecise, and sensitive to the details of the question. But it seems pretty clear that this isn't some marginal, "extremist" view.

    Of course, there's much to be said for the position that even views held by a small minority still need to be expressible in such places—including privately owned places that are so central to modern speech—for public debate to properly function. But at least if Facebook blocks the Nazis or the Communists, the immediate practical effect will be limited, because those views aren't major players in American public debate in any event. (Thankfully, "should we bring back the Holocaust?" or "should we have a violent Communist revolution?" aren't major topics in current American debate.)

    Here, though, no-one can claim that somehow the judgment of history has been rendered and that nothing would be practically lost to public debate if a few extremists can't express their views. Nor can one argue that this is just a matter of medical consensus or of factual disinformation (though again I'd be skeptical of even those bases for restriction).

    Rather, Facebook appears to be trying to suppress an important normative position on a live political issue—a view expressed by major elected politicians about what policies our democratic process should adopt. Again, not good for Facebook to try control public debate this way, it seems to me.
    more at the link
     
    Invisible Fan likes this.
  7. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    Google relents after Post fights censorship of YouTube interview with Jan. 6 rioter

    https://nypost.com/2022/06/08/google-relents-after-censoring-post-interview-with-jan-6-rioter/

    excerpt:

    Google said Wednesday it will allow a Post video interview with a Capitol rioter to remain on YouTube — after The Post exposed the platform’s censorship of the clip in a front-page story that pointed out the video helped convict the man.

    The latest Big Tech attempt to squash The Post’s reporting occurred Monday when the Google-owned video site deleted the interview taped inside the Capitol — saying Brooklyn man Aaron Mostofsky, 35, spouted “misinformation.”

    The video featuring Mostofsky, the son of Brooklyn judge Steven Mostofsky, was one of the only professional interviews conducted with a rioter inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It was cited by many news outlets and the Justice Department used it to help prosecute Mostofsky, who last month was sentenced to eight months in prison.

    Mostofsky, who was wearing fur pelts, a police vest and a riot shield that he said he “found,” said in the interview that he joined the first wave of intruders because the election was “stolen” from then-President Donald Trump, who had just finished making a speech with similar claims.

    The interview was filmed near the Senate chamber’s doors as Vice President Mike Pence, lawmakers and most reporters fled the violent siege that disrupted certification of the 2020 election.

    In a statement to The Post, Google on Wednesday attempted to justify its initial censorship by claiming the deleted page on a Post reporter’s personal channel (archived here) lacked enough “context” about Mostofsky’s false claim that Trump actually won the election.

    The company said it would allow the exact same interview to remain on The Post’s YouTube page, where it was re-posted Tuesday in a challenge to the censorship. The only alteration to the video was the addition of a watermark. Both versions had descriptions linking to Post articles giving additional context.

    “I’m reaching out as there was recent coverage in The New York Post regarding a video removed from a journalist’s personal YouTube channel for violating our Community Guidelines on election integrity. This policy prohibits content that advances false claims that widespread fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, such as claiming that the election was stolen,” YouTube strategic partner manager Victor Mello wrote in an email.

    “A similar video was recently uploaded to The New York Post’s channel as well. While we don’t permit content that violates the policy, we do make an exception for content that provides sufficient context. The version uploaded to The New York Post’s YouTube channel contains context and does not violate YouTube’s Community Guidelines. The version uploaded to the journalist’s personal YouTube channel did not provide sufficient context and will remain down.”

    Google spokeswoman Ivy Choi separately defended the initial deletion.

    “We removed this video for violating our election integrity policy, which prohibits content that advances false claims that widespread fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, such as claiming that the election was stolen,” Choi wrote. “While we do allow content that provides additional context, such as countervailing views in the video’s description, the content we removed from this channel was footage that did not provide sufficient context.”

    The original clip racked up nearly 200,000 views in the chaotic aftermath of the riot before it was purged 17 months after its publication. The censorship coincided with significant advertisement of a primetime hearing Thursday by the Democrat-led House select committee that’s investigating the riot.

    Ironically, the committee’s hearing will feature testimony from British documentary filmmaker Nick Quested, who trailed members of the far-right Proud Boys group as they stormed the Capitol. Google did not respond to an inquiry about whether any of his work will be censored.

    Free speech advocates decried YouTube’s deletion of The Post’s interview.

    “The fact that the interview was cited by other news outlets and used by the DOJ speaks to its importance as a primary source for historians, other journalists and the general public,” said Nico Perrino, vice president of communications at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a prominent pro-free speech group.

    “The memoryholing of information is a historian and journalist’s worst nightmare,” Perrino said.

    “Labeling the expression of certain beliefs ‘misinformation’ to justify removing that expression from content libraries and platforms sets a dangerous precedent,” he added. “It restricts our ability to understand people’s real motivations and therefore to understand current and past events. In this case, the fact that the content that was removed was original reporting by a journalist makes its removal all the more chilling.”

    Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, a digital policy advocacy group, said, “This is a clear example of why demanding that platforms remove more content faster does not lead to better online discourse.”

    “Platforms haphazardly enforcing vague rules on disinformation will always lead to this type of collateral damage to legitimate reporting and speech,” Greer said.

    Google’s policy on election-related claims appears to be unevenly enforced. For example, footage remains available on YouTube of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton claiming that the 2016 election was “stolen” and that Trump was an “illegitimate president.”
    more at the link

     
  8. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,069
    Likes Received:
    25,082
    Trump’s ‘Truth Social’ Network Is Melting Down, Going Anti-Free Speech, And Banning People Who Mention The Jan. 6 Hearings

    Could it be possible that Trump’s “Truth Social” network can’t handle the truth? It sure seems like the platform is in total meltdown mode over the Jan 6 hearings. And it’s semi-understandable why the collective group’s feeling ruffled feathers. Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner didn’t score points, but at least what The Kush said didn’t appear to upset them. It was when (Soon-To-Be-Former) Favorite Trump Child Ivanka threw dad under the bus that things got really rough. Ivanka looked like a “deer caught in the headlights” while admitting that she believed ex-Attorney General Bill Barr’s conclusion that there was no evidence of tangible voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

    In other words, she believed that her dad lost the election. This makes for an awkward family Thanksgiving, especially since Trump lashed out in response while claiming that she was “checked out” and didn’t know what she was talking about. Well, Trump also reportedly posted this on Truth Social: “The so-called ‘Rush on the Capitol’ was not caused by me, it was caused by a Rigged and Stolen election!”


    The delusions are running high, for sure. And don’t even mention the hearings over there unless you want to be permanently banned. Yep, that’s correct:



    So much for free speech from the free speech champions, right? Twitter’s full of chatter about the many people who are being banned from Truth Social for daring to mention the hearings.







    Pretty freaking wild. 2022 is proving to be as unhinged as 2016, and will things ever calm down, politically? Your guess is as good as mine.
     
  9. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,923
    Likes Received:
    12,809
    ^^^^ Why is Trump banning free speech on his social platform!?!?! I need some folks on the inside to explain it.

    @Os Trigonum
    @basso
    @tinman

     
    ThatBoyNick likes this.
  10. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    lol. where's the federal disinformation governance board when you need it

    YouTube Deleted a January 6th Committee Video for Spreading Election Misinformation
    "We enforce our policies equally for everyone," said a spokesperson.

    https://reason.com/2022/06/17/youtube-january-6-committee-hearing-trump/

    excerpt:

    YouTube removed a video uploaded by the January 6th Committee that showed footage of former President Donald Trump contesting the results of the 2020 election.

    Trump's false claim that voting machines erroneously "moved thousands of votes from my account to [Joe] Biden's account" was aired during the committee hearings, which are ongoing this week. Former Attorney General William Barr testified before the committee that he discovered no evidence to support Trump's assertions. Video footage of the hearings is available on YouTube.

    The platform, however, has very strict rules against spreading election misinformation, which prohibit users from posting videos that observe that a false claim has been made, even if the user does not endorse the claim.

    "Our election integrity policy prohibits content advancing false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, if it does not provide sufficient context," Ivy Choi, a spokesperson for YouTube, told The New York Times. "We enforce our policies equally for everyone, and have removed the video uploaded by the Jan. 6 committee channel."

    In essence, YouTube does not distinguish between Trump saying the election was stolen and a third party saying that Trump says the election was stolen. Suffice it to say this is not a very intelligent policy.
    more at the link

     
  11. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    Turley comments:
    He Who Must Not Be Heard: YouTube Censors Jan. 6th Committee for Including Video Clip of President Donald Trump
    https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/...cluding-video-clip-of-president-donald-trump/
     
  12. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    Cornell Library YouTube page restored after termination last week over nudity content

    https://ithacavoice.com/2022/06/cornell-library-youtube-page-restored-after-termination-last-week-over-nudity-content/

    excerpt:

    One wouldn’t think of Cornell University Library’s YouTube page as a center of controversy. A quick glance at its upload history shows that most of the page’s videos get less than 1,000 views, and its most popular video is a 2019 exploration of “Roman emperors from Augustus to Constantine.”

    So it came as a surprise late last week when word began to spread that the Cornell Library’s page had been wiped entirely and the account terminated. That meant losing 114 videos of mostly academic lectures presented by scholars on a vast variety of topics.

    It’s not known who or what reported the channel, but the reason for the temporary measure appears to have been nudity in at least one of the videos posted by the page three weeks ago. The topic of those videos was 1980s feminism, namely “The Feminist Sex Wars: A Retrospective by Gayle Rubin” and “Making a Lesbian Sex Magazine in the Age of Feminist Sex Wars.”

    Both talks, held in late April, centered on the “On Our Backs” LGBTQ and feminist magazine, and the first lesbian erotica magazine, which was the subject of a commemorative exhibit at the library. The complaint appears to have been made about the latter video, which now has a content warning attached at the beginning of the video. There are at least three depictions of female nudity during the presentations, as examples of what “On Our Backs” was publishing.

    A statement from Cornell University deemed the full channel wipe as a “suspension,” though others called it a “termination.” It’s unclear if the page being taken down was the result of a complaint from an actual person or if AI content moderation software flagged the video itself and initiated the process after that.

    ***
    Susie Bright, the lecturer who delivered the presentation in the flagged video and the founder of “On Our Backs” magazine, addressed the situation as it unfolded in a post on her website, dated June 17.

    ***
    On June 22, Bright updated the post to say that the videos had been restored and the account reinstated, thanking her readers and others who expressed anger at YouTube’s action—something she thinks may have helped influence the overturn. Her original post includes the following quote as well.

    “I have to laugh, really, thinking of how Google’s termination the past two weeks erased all the Cornell lectures on higher mathematics and plate tectonics, fashion design and human ecology, Classical Greek and MBA best practices—yes, ALL OF IT, has been ‘terminated’ by Google because they and their AI moderators are so concerned about ‘sensitive content,'” Bright wrote. “They won’t stand for it. I agree that feminist history is indeed a touchy subject.”

    Bright said she had heard other similar stories about other universities in the wake of the Cornell situation—namely, that Rutgers University’s Center for the Genocide and Human Rights had its Facebook page shut down at some point after referencing the Holocaust. In an interview, she voiced some optimism that so many people had taken notice of the situation and made their support known on social media—if a bit jaded from having dealt with another censorship episode. But a career in feminist writing has given Bright ample experience with such an issue.

    “To have this groundswell, I think there is an inflection point in the corruption, incompetence and callousness in what it means to have moderation right now,” Bright said.
    more at the link
     
  13. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    https://theweek.com/disney/1015447/hulu-to-accept-political-issue-ads-after-backlash-from-democrats


    Hulu to accept political issue ads after backlash from Democrats
    by Brendan Morrow

    Disney has tweaked the advertising policies for Hulu after being accused of "censorship" by Democrats.

    The company on Wednesday said it has decided to accept political issue ads on Hulu following a "thorough review" of its policies, Axios reports.

    The decision comes after Democratic leaders this week slammed the streaming service for not allowing political advertising on key issues including abortion and guns ahead of the 2022 midterms.

    "Hulu's censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country," the executive directors of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association told The Washington Post. They told the outlet their ads on abortion and guns were rejected and argued Hulu "is doing a huge disservice to the American people by blocking voters from learning the truth."

    The story led Democrats to use the hashtag #BoycottHulu on Twitter. But Disney, which has majority control over Hulu, says it "will now accept candidate and issue advertisements covering a wide spectrum of policy positions, but reserves the right to request edits or alternative creative, in alignment with industry standards." This is the same policy used by Disney on its cable networks. Hulu had already been allowing candidate advertising.

    For now, Disney's streaming service Disney+ doesn't have any advertising. But the company plans to introduce an ad-supported tier to Disney+ this year, and when it does, alcohol and political advertising won't be allowed.
     
  14. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
  15. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
  16. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  17. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,906
    Likes Received:
    15,373
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  18. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,768
    Likes Received:
    39,023
    I'm sure there must be some sort of record here for posts in a row by one member. You trying to break whatever it might be, or just making an effort to get attention?

    Having gotten that out of the way, I like nudity. Three cheers for the Cornell Library!
     
  19. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,833
    the good news is that Youtube is a private company so it can do anything it wants

     

Share This Page