OT: Social Media Censorship

[bcvegaspt]

From the Wall Street Journal

The Editorial Board of the WSJ bringing attention to the political pressure from the current White House administration to ban a NYT reporter for opposing them is a pretty big deal. I hope that this receives a lot of negative press so that it’s never repeated. Free speech isn’t just a suggestion in The USA.

 

[j. spilotro]

From the Wall Street Journal

The Editorial Board of the WSJ bringing attention to the political pressure from the current White House administration to ban a NYT reporter for opposing them is a pretty big deal. I hope that this receives a lot of negative press so that it’s never repeated. Free speech isn’t just a suggestion in The USA.

Nah, censorship doesn’t exist!

Which means, if you believe what’s allowed to flow through those many filters, it’s not censorship. It’s smart.

If all points of view are allowed, it’s a bad, bad thing because an alternate point of view can hurt feelings.

Been through this a million times even here on the site, with people doing whatever they can to allow one point of view only.

It’s not happening. Points of view welcome. You are free to post what you want (within some pretty liberal guardrails). And you are free to read who or what you want, and free to not read who or what you want. Use the controls for your individual profile to filter out what you deem to be garbage.

But yeah, what you are posting, it’s insanity. One of the most very basic of rights is eroding. I shouldn’t say one, but freedom of speech is a hard foundation. And so many are ok with silencing a large chunk of society, to hell with free speech. It’s mind boggling.

I’m looking at loads of formerly deemed “misinformation” being accepted as the truth or high probability right now. So damaging.

 

[bcvegaspt]

To your point, Joe, and to anyone who feels differently, please respond with intelligent counterpoints and not name calling. All opinions are welcome. Those without name calling are always much better received. The one thing I remember from learning about debates is that any personal attack weakens an argument. Basically, you’ve lost as soon as you resort to attacks.

 

[1Tripoda]

No one wants censorship , bro. No one like communism not even the communists. Well, maybe the corrupted and money hungry ones do. Most common people love freedom and the freedom of speech. The autocratic society where there are ramification for criticising the president. We see it everyday our very own representatives like Bobbert and MTG spewing up BS and Qannon theories to the point of insanity and no ramification. Ship those idiots to Russia and China and let them ciritisize XI and Putin, see what happens.

 

[NSU67]

This is a very broad subject, never to be decided on a message board.
As a political matter, please keep in mind that the 1st amendment considers only government interference in free speech.
An example would be the Sedition Acts of WWI, which made it a crime to criticize the President. Or, McCarthyism of the 50's which called for public employees to be fired for "having communist leanings."
News media today is the most open in our history. In our nation, the media has always self-censored. Today, Fox does it. MSNBC does it. Breitbart, Huff, everyone.
Has the Biden administration asked media to censor some opinion? Certainly. As has every administration. Forever

If, and when, government orders or act to censor, then it becomes an amendment application.
Lastly remember, there has always been limitation on free speech. Asking people to attack the Capitol, or FBI agents, or even school board members, certainly will test those limits.

 

[bcvegaspt]

This is a very broad subject, never to be decided on a message board.
As a political matter, please keep in mind that the 1st amendment considers only government interference in free speech.
An example would be the Sedition Acts of WWI, which made it a crime to criticize the President. Or, McCarthyism of the 50's which called for public employees to be fired for "having communist leanings."
News media today is the most open in our history. In our nation, the media has always self-censored. Today, Fox does it. MSNBC does it. Breitbart, Huff, everyone.
Has the Biden administration asked media to censor some opinion? Certainly. As has every administration. Forever

If, and when, government orders or act to censor, then it becomes an amendment application.
Lastly remember, there has always been limitation on free speech. Asking people to attack the Capitol, or FBI agents, or even school board members, certainly will test those limits.

I saw this as a counter to that and the NYT reporter’s response was “Yes. And yes.”

Of course, a court will ultimately rule one way or the other but this is the reporter’s interpretation (I acknowledge bias, of course).

 

[NSU67]

First, Ted Cruz???
Second, anyone can sue for any reason. Whether it goes anywhere is doubtful, I suspect.
The government can, and has, hundreds of times, asked that something or someone not be published. Often, particularly in times of war, security, aiding law enforcement, or national emergency, media has voluntarily complied.
They key is, they may not require it unless they can show a court a compelling need.
It is that old first amendment thing.

 

[bcvegaspt]

First, Ted Cruz???
Second, anyone can sue for any reason. Whether it goes anywhere is doubtful, I suspect.
The government can, and has, hundreds of times, asked that something or someone not be published. Often, particularly in times of war, security, aiding law enforcement, or national emergency, media has voluntarily complied.
They key is, they may not require it unless they can show a court a compelling need.
It is that old first amendment thing.

Read the tweet at the bottom of what I posted and then re-read my post.

Secondly, can someone not from the political party you don’t agree with make a good point here and there? I didn’t read Ted Cruz’s tweet before I read the response at the bottom and the NYT reporter’s response of “Yes. And yes.” to that specific response.

Of course anyone can sue for any reason. I can sue you for focusing on only one aspect of my post and over-reacting to it and writing it off completely. I won’t, though, since I thought that your last post was merely a misunderstanding of my post.

One thing that I learned most from traveling outside of the USA is to look at how we do things here versus how things are done elsewhere. Just because things are done here a certain way doesn’t mean that they are correct. That’s why I like to talk with people who see an issue completely differently to learn why they see it the way they do. My point being is that I wish this happened with political parties and members of those parties. Just because Biden, Trump, etc. said something doesn’t make it right or wrong, it just may be a different way of trying to correct a problem.

 

[NSU67]

Sorry, bc, I thought your op referred to the WH urging the censorship of a writer. That is why I approached it from that aspect.

 

[bcvegaspt]

Sorry, bc, I thought your op referred to the WH urging the censorship of a writer. That is why I approached it from that aspect.

It absolutely did. I just found it funny that you focused initially on a political opponent.

I guess that we can agree to disagree about censorship. I appreciate the civility of our conversation.

 

[NSU67]

Just two things, I did not concentrate on Cruz. You quoted him, I reacted to that.
Second I gave no opinion on censorship. I explained the amendment, and how it works with media.
I would agree that government should not censor, except for extreme national need, which is what courts have ruled.
Democracy depends on it.

 

[1Tripoda]

Just two things, I did not concentrate on Cruz. You quoted him, I reacted to that.
Second I gave no opinion on censorship. I explained the amendment, and how it works with media.
I would agree that government should not censor, except for extreme national need, which is what courts have ruled.
Democracy depends on it.

We're on a verge of a civil war. Someone loss his life needlessly in Cincinnati because of the social media frenzy. Maybe it is God's design ...maybe it is stupidities. Something have to be controlled.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

From the Wall Street Journal

The Editorial Board of the WSJ bringing attention to the political pressure from the current White House administration to ban a NYT reporter for opposing them is a pretty big deal. I hope that this receives a lot of negative press so that it’s never repeated. Free speech isn’t just a suggestion in The USA.

The reporter in question is Alex Berenson I believe...

Whatever people's thoughts on him are, this is inexcusable behavior by the government..

I would say this about a GOP administration using pressure to silence a left leaning outlet like VICE..

In light of the attack on Solomon Rushdie, state attempts to silence speech should be vilified by everyone and not applauded by anyone.

 

[NSU67]

Besides voting, free speech is paramount to a democracy.

Free speech has, and should have limits.
Since the beginning of our Republic, defining those limits has been a question tied to a pendulum.

Government, at all levels, led by both parties, in all 50 states, has always tried to influence media coverage. The first amendment forbids the CONTROL of free speech by government.

That is my point. I can cite examples ad nauseum. If anyone would like to DM me, I can do so.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Besides voting, free speech is paramount to a democracy.

Free speech has, and should have limits.
Since the beginning of our Republic, defining those limits has been a question tied to a pendulum.

Government, at all levels, led by both parties, in all 50 states, has always tried to influence media coverage. The first amendment forbids the CONTROL of free speech by government.

That is my point. I can cite examples ad nauseum. If anyone would like to DM me, I can do so.

Recent interview with Solomon Rushdie.
'I stop listening when somebody says 'I'm for free speech, but'..'

Twitter as a private entity like any corporation can censor who they want. If I work for Smith's as a cashier and tell every customer that comes through my line 'Albertsons has better pricing you should go there.' Smith's would be well within their rights to censure if not fire me.

That is completely different than the government pressuring a media outlet to censor unfavorable reporting.

That is exactly what the first amendment is meant to protect.

There are a number of what I would call right wing media outlets. Gateway Pundit, Breitbart etc that I am ideologically opposed to...However I would be vehemently against the government doing anything to coerce or manipulate outlets into censoring them.

The issue with limiting free speech is that at some point the other guy will hold the keys. Imagine a conservative administration shutting down MSNBC or CNN or not allowing them access to press conferences.

I'm not going at you. Simply stating the government actively pressuring an entity like Twitter or Facebook etc to ban somebody due to 'misinformation' is an extremely slippery slope. Because today's 'truth' is tomorrow's 'misinformation' and vice versa, depending on who wields the power.

Imagine this story is Trump administration pressured Twitter to silence a Vice reporter...

The outrage and coverage would be deafening and rightly so..

 

[JAGERVEGAS]

We're on a verge of a civil war. Someone loss his life needlessly in Cincinnati because of the social media frenzy. Maybe it is God's design ...maybe it is stupidities. Something have to be controlled.

I think we’ve never been closer since 1861

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

We're on a verge of a civil war. Someone loss his life needlessly in Cincinnati because of the social media frenzy. Maybe it is God's design ...maybe it is stupidities. Something have to be controlled.

Controlled by whom?

 

[j. spilotro]

The reporter in question is Alex Berenson I believe...

Whatever people's thoughts on him are, this is inexcusable behavior by the government..

I would say this about a GOP administration using pressure to silence a left leaning outlet like VICE..

In light of the attack on Solomon Rushdie, state attempts to silence speech should be vilified by everyone and not applauded by anyone.

Berenson is out there with some stuff, some stuff I think he’s spot on. But he should be allowed to say it. And there’s NO WAY he should be targeted by the government as he has been. He should sue the government and he should win.

He’s not the only one that the government has decided to silence because of a different point of view. It blows my mind that people are actually ok with this. I don’t give a flying f if it’s Carter, Kennedy, Washington, Biden or Trump admin doing it - IT. IS. WRONG.

But right or wrong doesn’t seem to be an absolute nowadays. If it’s with you, it’s right, if it’s against you, it’s wrong. That’s sheepbrain shit right there.

 

[NSU67]

Bull, your post is right on. If the government threatened a newspaper with action for publishing something, absolutely.
And, Joe, your comment about 'if it's with you, it's right, and if it's against you, it's wrong" is right on, also.

That was not my point.

Suppose the R-J is going to publish the names of our agents in hostile nations. Or nuclear secrets. I believe that those may well be examples of situations where the government might object.

Let me repeat. There are limits to free speech. Always have been. Always will be. And, should be. Determining where those limits are is the question that is often difficult.

And, our government has never put out a fatwa on any author. Now, that would be a violation! Lol