Censorship Fallacies

[EvMetro]

1. The notion that censorship is not censorship if it isn't done by the government.

This is when people confuse the first amendment right that protects freedom of speech with the act of censoring. If the government uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is called censorship. Illegal censorship, but still censorship. If private industry uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is still called censorship. Yes, private industry can legally censor, but it is still called censorship.

Here is how Wikipedia defines censorship, notice that it has nothing to do with any constitutional rights or legal vs illegal. It is what it is.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The notion that censorship is not censorship if it isn't done by the government.

This is when people confuse the first amendment right that protects freedom of speech with the act of censoring. If the government uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is called censorship. Illegal censorship, but still censorship. If private industry uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is still called censorship. Yes, private industry can legally censor, but it is still called censorship.

Here is how Wikipedia defines censorship, notice that it has nothing to do with any constitutional rights or legal vs illegal. It is what it is.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

They lie about everything…..

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

Anne Applebaum, who observes about Soviet-era suppression: “Actual censors were not always needed. Instead, a form of pervasive peer pressure convinced writers, journalists and everyone else to toe the party line; if they did not, they knew they risked being ejected from their jobs and shunned by their friends.”

JONATHAN TURLEY: I want to emphasize that a lot of people on the left that have said if it's not prohibited on the First Amendment, it's not a free speech issue. That's not true. The First Amendment is not the exclusive domain of free speech. What they are doing is shutting down free speech. The left has come on to a winning strategy. …. they've discovered that if they use corporations to control speech, it falls outside the First Amendment. But it's not true that what they're doing is not a free speech attack. It is. They're trying to stop people from speaking on these platforms…. https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-rogan-spotify-jonathan-turley-left-silence-free-speech





"5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.

bans social media companies from censoring users’ viewpoints is constitutionally allowed, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, in a blow to Facebook, Twitter and Google.

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies."

5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.

www.politico.com

 

[Donald H]

1. The notion that censorship is not censorship if it isn't done by the government.

This is when people confuse the first amendment right that protects freedom of speech with the act of censoring. If the government uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is called censorship. Illegal censorship, but still censorship. If private industry uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is still called censorship. Yes, private industry can legally censor, but it is still called censorship.

Here is how Wikipedia defines censorship, notice that it has nothing to do with any constitutional rights or legal vs illegal. It is what it is.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

Each political side in America will censor according to their priorities.

And then the political priorities will become one, under a fascist regime that will tolerate no dissention.

I'm predicting a huge defeat of the D party in the coming election, and then that will enable Americans to come together under a fascist regime, that's amenable to all.

 

[Concerned American]

And then the political priorities will become one, under a fascist regime that will tolerate no dissention.

Sorry, duck, the US is not Canada. Please don't project your problems on our country. We have enough of our own without your incompetent help.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your freedom of speech doesn't come with an obligation for others to listen, repeat or publish what you say.

 

[progressive hunter]

Your freedom of speech doesn't come with an obligation for others to listen, repeat or publish what you say.

them not wanting to listen is on them and they can not listen,, that doesnt mean its right for a private person or company to restrict that speech when the business is about speech,,

 

[MisterBeale]

1. The notion that censorship is not censorship if it isn't done by the government.

This is when people confuse the first amendment right that protects freedom of speech with the act of censoring. If the government uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is called censorship. Illegal censorship, but still censorship. If private industry uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is still called censorship. Yes, private industry can legally censor, but it is still called censorship.

Here is how Wikipedia defines censorship, notice that it has nothing to do with any constitutional rights or legal vs illegal. It is what it is.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

This comes from a profound political ignorance of the American public, due mostly because government runs the schools.

See, fascism is more than just about "ideology," or the emotional side of political ideology, it is also has an economic component.

America, has always drifted toward the fascist economic model. Adolf Hitler even complemented FDR on his ground breaking initiative, of privatizing the US economy.

Whenever the state privatizes, and manages the nation through private industry, that is the fascist model. Achieving the goals of the national government through private corporations, and private non-governmental organizations, avoids civil guarantees that are codified in the state laws.


More and more of our Bill of Rights, not just our first Amendment right, but many others, are going to be subverted by corporations moving forward, by corporations. This is the ruling global elites plan to get around the Bill of Rights and the American Judicial system.

If they have a problem curtailing the 2nd Amendment? They will just have banks not give capital to arms manufactures, or loans to guns retailers, or extend credit to those who would purchase guns. Or if you do purchase guns? They will have banks increase the interest rates on your car and mortgages. Cloud computing and smart AI make all of this possible now.


Moving forward, there are so many, very tricky ways that the ruling political and economic elites have of subverting the peoples civil rights and civil liberties, that the courts will have no way of ruling against, because the Constitution says very little specifically about any of these.

Data is the new oil, information is power.

 

[MisterBeale]

Your freedom of speech doesn't come with an obligation for others to listen, repeat or publish what you say.

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

 

[BlindBoo]

them not wanting to listen is on them and they can not listen,, that doesnt mean its right for a private person or company to restrict that speech when the business is about speech,,

It is their right.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We aren't calling it censorship. Obama calls it "removing disinformation for our own good". We need to get Obama out of office...

 

[BlindBoo]

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

How fascist of you to demand every platform publish anything you say, because, freedom!

 

[progressive hunter]

It is their right.

no its not because thats not a right,,,

if their business is about speech and they restrict speech thats censorship,,,

 

[toobfreak]

The notion that censorship is not censorship if it isn't done by the government.

Actually, censorship becomes even MORE egregious when not done directly by the government but instead by private industry instead at the BEHEST of the government for them so they can oppress people and get around the laws of our Constitution with legal aplomb.

 

[Blues Man]

1. The notion that censorship is not censorship if it isn't done by the government.

This is when people confuse the first amendment right that protects freedom of speech with the act of censoring. If the government uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is called censorship. Illegal censorship, but still censorship. If private industry uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is still called censorship. Yes, private industry can legally censor, but it is still called censorship.

Here is how Wikipedia defines censorship, notice that it has nothing to do with any constitutional rights or legal vs illegal. It is what it is.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

The difference being the government can actually stop a person from saying anything to anyone and a private business cannot do that. Government can make laws, private individuals or businesses cannot.

if Facebook bans you, you are still free to publish a blog and say whatever you want, you are free to put up your own website, to print and publish any material you want and to say whatever you want to any other person if they will listen.

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a free venue or an audience.

 

[MisterBeale]

How fascist of you to demand every platform publish anything you say, because, freedom!

Why do I demand such a thing?

Because we can dispense with the fiction that the government has long ago had any pretense of ever really enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Concentration of media ownership - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is Media Consolidation and Why Should Anyone Care? - BillMoyers

Sinclair’s purchase of Tribune is only possible because Trump’s FCC Chairman Ajit Pai relaxed rules preventing media consolidation.

billmoyers.com

Big Tech: Media Antitrust Exemption Would Create News Cartels​

Big Tech: Media Antitrust Exemption Would Create News Cartels

Said Senate Judiciary approval of bill is a threat to digital services

www.nexttv.com

And of course, now it has come out that the government and FBI are now telling all the major Big Tech companies what content is, and is not, allowable on their platforms. THAT? Is government control of people's speech. Stop pretending it isn't.

That you would accuse me, of the very thing the government is doing? Really is quite revealing.

Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents

https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents_4704349.html but i thought they weren't doing this? now big tech is part of the government?

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Concerned American]

The difference being the government can actually stop a person from saying anything to anyone and a private business cannot do that. Government can make laws, private individuals or businesses cannot.

if Facebook bans you, you are still free to publish a blog and say whatever you want, you are free to put up your own website, to print and publish any material you want and to say whatever you want to any other person if they will listen.

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a free venue or an audience.

It also does not afford social media immunity from prosecution for liability from what they do allow to be posted. Section 230.

 

[MisterBeale]

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a free venue or an audience.

It should however, keep the government from meddling in private corporations, to censor and control the speech of citizens.

It would seem to me, this is the very real reason, we have regulatory capture, and no real enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust act in Big Tech, since the establishment of the internet. The benefits here, are clearly big tech, and the intelligence industry. Any political party that plays ball will benefit.

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents

https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents_4704349.html but i thought they weren't doing this? now big tech is part of the government?

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[EvMetro]

Your freedom of speech doesn't come with an obligation for others to listen, repeat or publish what you say.

Don't just talk, SAY something. You have come here to support and defend censorship as lefties do like a moth to the flame.

What you have done here is created fallacy #2 that I'll elaborate on.

2. This fallacy is that those who are against the corrupt act of censorship feel that others have an obligation to limit, repeat, or publish what they have to say. This is a fallacy because censorship, according to Wikipedia, is

"the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

The meaning of censorship has ZERO connection to any feeling that there is an obligation for one's content to be read, repeated, or published.

What you posted is a strawman, a red herring, and thread derailment meant to support and defend censorship.

 

[BlindBoo]

What you have done here is created fallacy #2 that I'll elaborate on.

2. This fallacy is that those who are against the corrupt act of censorship feel that others have an obligation to limit, repeat, or publish what they have to say. This is a fallacy because censorship, according to Wikipedia, is

"the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

The meaning of censorship has ZERO connection to any feeling that there is an obligation for one's content to be read, repeated, or published.

What you posted is a strawman, a red herring, and thread derailment meant to support and defend censorship.

So even USMB is free to censor us, but it is corrupt. Got it.

That the platforms have a right to monitor content, that doesn't mean they have an obligation to do so. When the government puts the obligation to publish or not to publish something (not based on national security or decency standards) that imo, is corrupt censorship and a violation of the First.

 

[Blues Man]

It should however, keep the government from meddling in private corporations, to censor and control the speech of citizens.

It would seem to me, this is the very real reason, we have regulatory capture, and no real enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust act in Big Tech, since the establishment of the internet. The benefits here, are clearly big tech, and the intelligence industry. Any political party that plays ball will benefit.

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents

https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents_4704349.html but i thought they weren't doing this? now big tech is part of the government?

www.usmessageboard.com

If the government overstepped it's lanes then surely a court case will remedy that.

I am surprised that there hasn't been a case yet.