Condemnation of censorship

[FA_Q2]

In 1988 if Al's movie store didn't want to carry porn, no one made him.
In 2021 you are demanding that Al and all the other Als be forced to carry you brand of porn.

Don't look at me as the hypocrite, hypocrite. That's all you.

You and the rest of Trumpism demanding to use the government to enforce their personal petty grudges. How "conservative" and tiny-minded of you.

At this point, you're just plain being intellectually dishonest.

In other words, you're lying.

Either that, or you're batshit crazy. Most likely, both.

In any event, no rational basis exists for any sane, honest person to even attempt to have this conversation with you.

So, you got nuthin'?

Seems those are some good points you're evading. All this pretense that private censorship is bad is nonsense. It's everyone's right to censor whatever is in their purview.

It is not nonsense. Private censorship IS bad, at least to the extreme that it has gone on recently.

Censorship is just exercising judgement. Whether you think it's good or bad depends on whether you agree with those doing the censoring. I assume you're ok with websites censoring pornography, right?

Well, yes and no. Weather I think censorship is bad has literally nothing to do with my agreement on those doing the censoring. None at all. My problem with censorship is scale and pretty much only scale. IOW, I do not think the internet should be cleansed of [whatever stand in analogy we are using] or for it to be regulated to some dark corner almost no one knows how to access. That would be the extreme I am talking about here when I refer to 'bad' censorship and that censorship is bad if we are talking about Nazis or pornography.

Just because the government is not the one to solve it does not mean something is good nor does it mean that it should not be called out and rallied against as a people. Right now the market is to restrictive and ALL the talk is how the government can make it even more so.

Sure, I get that. And I'd agree that much of the censorship going on is bad. But I'm really concerned by the calls from many Republicans to "go after", or otherwise regulate, media companies that are censoring in ways they don't like. That would be far worse, more damaging to our nation, than putting up with biased or partisan media.

It would IMHO as well but then again, I am not so concerned about the republican calls as much as I am about the fact they are all calling for regulation. Do you think the republican calls are somehow worse than the ones the democrats have been threatening big tech with because the left is in power, not the right, and they want to directly control the message. The right wants open access. Not sure how that is even workable and certainly would cause more harm and less access but one is clearly a larger threat in my mind. Why is it reversed for you?

 

[kaz]

I'm not a lefty ...

Funny for someone who isn't a lefty you need to keep telling people who read your posts that, LOL

 

[dblack]

Censorship is just exercising judgement. Whether you think it's good or bad depends on whether you agree with those doing the censoring. I assume you're ok with websites censoring pornography, right?

Well, yes and no. Weather I think censorship is bad has literally nothing to do with my agreement on those doing the censoring. None at all.

Sure it does. Unless you're contending that the all censorship is bad, which seems crazy to me. Unless you're saying FB should be forced to host hardcore pornography, then you recognize that censorship is an exercise in judgement, and your appreciation of the judgement of others will vary.

Just because the government is not the one to solve it does not mean something is good nor does it mean that it should not be called out and rallied against as a people. Right now the market is to restrictive and ALL the talk is how the government can make it even more so.

Sure, I get that. And I'd agree that much of the censorship going on is bad. But I'm really concerned by the calls from many Republicans to "go after", or otherwise regulate, media companies that are censoring in ways they don't like. That would be far worse, more damaging to our nation, than putting up with biased or partisan media.

It would IMHO as well but then again, I am not so concerned about the republican calls as much as I am about the fact they are all calling for regulation. Do you think the republican calls are somehow worse than the ones the democrats have been threatening big tech with because the left is in power, not the right, and they want to directly control the message. The right wants open access. Not sure how that is even workable and certainly would cause more harm and less access but one is clearly a larger threat in my mind. Why is it reversed for you?

One isn't worse than the other. But Democrats are a lost cause. They love regulation more than life itself. Republicans, before Trump came a long, had a tradition of opposing government encroachment on business. I'm hoping that tradition can be rekindled.

Also, I don't buy "the right wants open access", not when it comes to those clamoring for a crackdown on social media. They want retribution, they want to punish FB, Twitter, et al., for censoring Trump.

 

[dblack]

I'm not a lefty ...

Funny for someone who isn't a lefty you need to keep telling people who read your posts that, LOL

Only the Trumpsters are confused.

 

[kaz]

I'm not a lefty ...

Funny for someone who isn't a lefty you need to keep telling people who read your posts that, LOL

Only the Trumpsters are confused.

And yet the Democrats keep backing you up thinking you are one of them too

 

[dblack]

Censorship is just exercising judgement. Whether you think it's good or bad depends on whether you agree with those doing the censoring. I assume you're ok with websites censoring pornography, right?

Well, yes and no. Weather I think censorship is bad has literally nothing to do with my agreement on those doing the censoring. None at all.

Sure it does. Unless you're contending that the all censorship is bad, which seems crazy to me. Unless you're saying FB should be forced to host hardcore pornography, then you recognize that censorship is an exercise in judgement, and your appreciation of the judgement of others will vary.

Just because the government is not the one to solve it does not mean something is good nor does it mean that it should not be called out and rallied against as a people. Right now the market is to restrictive and ALL the talk is how the government can make it even more so.

Sure, I get that. And I'd agree that much of the censorship going on is bad. But I'm really concerned by the calls from many Republicans to "go after", or otherwise regulate, media companies that are censoring in ways they don't like. That would be far worse, more damaging to our nation, than putting up with biased or partisan media.

It would IMHO as well but then again, I am not so concerned about the republican calls as much as I am about the fact they are all calling for regulation. Do you think the republican calls are somehow worse than the ones the democrats have been threatening big tech with because the left is in power, not the right, and they want to directly control the message. The right wants open access. Not sure how that is even workable and certainly would cause more harm and less access but one is clearly a larger threat in my mind. Why is it reversed for you?

One isn't worse than the other. But Democrats are a lost cause. They love regulation more than life itself. Republicans, before Trump came along, had a tradition of opposing government encroachment on business. I'm hoping that tradition can be rekindled. If it's not, and Republicans join Democrats in the upside down premise that government should be doing the censoring - freedom of speech is dead.

Also, I don't buy "the right wants open access", not when it comes to those clamoring for a crackdown on social media. They want retribution, they want to punish FB, Twitter, et al., for censoring Trump.

 

[dblack]

I'm not a lefty ...

Funny for someone who isn't a lefty you need to keep telling people who read your posts that, LOL

Only the Trumpsters are confused.

And yet the Democrats keep backing you up thinking you are one of them too

Yep. They're as confused and hypocritical as Trumpsters.

 

[kaz]

I'm not a lefty ...

Funny for someone who isn't a lefty you need to keep telling people who read your posts that, LOL

Only the Trumpsters are confused.

And yet the Democrats keep backing you up thinking you are one of them too

Yep. They're as confused and hypocritical as Trumpsters.

Gotcha. So everyone doesn't think you're a leftist. Just the right and the left.

Good comeback, LOL.

Don't forget the libertarians, they keep telling you you're a leftist too

 

[dblack]

I'm not a lefty ...

Funny for someone who isn't a lefty you need to keep telling people who read your posts that, LOL

Only the Trumpsters are confused.

And yet the Democrats keep backing you up thinking you are one of them too

Yep. They're as confused and hypocritical as Trumpsters.

Gotcha. So everyone doesn't think you're a leftist. Just the right and the left.

Good comeback, LOL.

Don't forget the libertarians, they keep telling you you're a leftist too

Ok. Clearly you have hard-on for me. How about, instead of derailing the thread with personal attacks, you start a thread in the Badlands about what a terrible person I am?

 

[FA_Q2]

In 1988 if Al's movie store didn't want to carry porn, no one made him.
In 2021 you are demanding that Al and all the other Als be forced to carry you brand of porn.

Don't look at me as the hypocrite, hypocrite. That's all you.

You and the rest of Trumpism demanding to use the government to enforce their personal petty grudges. How "conservative" and tiny-minded of you.

At this point, you're just plain being intellectually dishonest.

In other words, you're lying.

Either that, or you're batshit crazy. Most likely, both.

In any event, no rational basis exists for any sane, honest person to even attempt to have this conversation with you.

So, you got nuthin'?

Seems those are some good points you're evading. All this pretense that private censorship is bad is nonsense. It's everyone's right to censor whatever is in their purview.

It is not nonsense. Private censorship IS bad, at least to the extreme that it has gone on recently.

Censorship is just exercising judgement. Whether you think it's good or bad depends on whether you agree with those doing the censoring. I assume you're ok with websites censoring pornography, right?

Well, yes and no. Weather I think censorship is bad has literally nothing to do with my agreement on those doing the censoring. None at all.

Sure it does. Unless you're contending that the all censorship is bad, which seems crazy to me. Unless you're saying FB should be forced to host hardcore pornography.

...
No it does not. I literally explained exactly what I meant when I say censorship is bad in the next sentences. Try again dblack. I thought it was pretty damn clear when I said it was scale that mattered.

Just because the government is not the one to solve it does not mean something is good nor does it mean that it should not be called out and rallied against as a people. Right now the market is to restrictive and ALL the talk is how the government can make it even more so.

Sure, I get that. And I'd agree that much of the censorship going on is bad. But I'm really concerned by the calls from many Republicans to "go after", or otherwise regulate, media companies that are censoring in ways they don't like. That would be far worse, more damaging to our nation, than putting up with biased or partisan media.

It would IMHO as well but then again, I am not so concerned about the republican calls as much as I am about the fact they are all calling for regulation. Do you think the republican calls are somehow worse than the ones the democrats have been threatening big tech with because the left is in power, not the right, and they want to directly control the message. The right wants open access. Not sure how that is even workable and certainly would cause more harm and less access but one is clearly a larger threat in my mind. Why is it reversed for you?

One isn't worse than the other. But Democrats are a lost cause. They love regulation more than life itself. Republicans, before Trump came a long, had a tradition of opposing government encroachment on business. I'm hoping that tradition can be rekindled.

Also, I don't buy "the right wants open access", not when it comes to those clamoring for a crackdown on social media. They want retribution, they want to punish FB, Twitter, et al., for censoring Trump.

lol. do you really think that democrats are more of a lost cause than the republicans? I thought that pre Bush. Post Bush, the republicans are just as big government, regulatory lovers and war hawks as the left. It used to be that you could count on the left for some sort of sanity in pursuit of war and the right to have some fiscal and regulatory sanity. They have normalized on those issues, both now love big spending and war they just want different targets.

As far as wanting retribution, I don't actually think so. They want power. To maintain that power they need media access. The opening right now is for the left to gain control of that access. The right would want control as well IF they could achieve it but that is not in the cards at this moment. That is why I say they want access, it is possible for them to lose that access and that threatens their power.

The sad part is that the democrats just may open the door for the republicans to actually take control after they start the process. That seems, to me at least, been the lesson of recent history. The left makes a massive change in way power works to benefit themselves for a short time then the right comes in and uses that power FAR more effectively than the left ever could.

ACB is exactly that.

 

[dblack]

As far as wanting retribution, I don't actually think so. They want power. To maintain that power they need media access. The opening right now is for the left to gain control of that access. The right would want control as well IF they could achieve it but that is not in the cards at this moment. That is why I say they want access, it is possible for them to lose that access and that threatens their power.

It may be about power and access for party strategists, but Trump and his followers are seeking retribution. It's how he rolls.

I think the claim that the left "controls" the media is overstated. There's definitely a liberal bias, but that's simply because media types are more likely to lean left. And it's compounded by the fact that most media outlets have abandoned the idea of impartial journalism, but that was spearheaded by Fox News.

The sad part is that the democrats just may open the door for the republicans to actually take control after they start the process. That seems, to me at least, been the lesson of recent history. The left makes a massive change in way power works to benefit themselves for a short time then the right comes in and uses that power FAR more effectively than the left ever could.

Definitely. The left expands government power and the right shows us why it's a bad idea. We'll see that in spades if they succeed in weakening the filibuster.

 

[FA_Q2]

As far as wanting retribution, I don't actually think so. They want power. To maintain that power they need media access. The opening right now is for the left to gain control of that access. The right would want control as well IF they could achieve it but that is not in the cards at this moment. That is why I say they want access, it is possible for them to lose that access and that threatens their power.

It may be about power and access for party strategists, but Trump and his followers are seeking retribution. It's how he rolls.

Well, cant argue with that. Trump and trumpetts do not worry me though, as loud as they are they wield no power to actually change things.

I have no doubt you are correct about the people on the ground, they want retribution. They do not write law.

I think the claim that the left "controls" the media is overstated.

Did not say they did. I said they see an opening to gain that control. That is a different animal. IF they get what they want, the ability to declare something as 'fake news' or 'misleading' and have it removed from all major distribution systems then they would gain outright control. That is what they are calling for - true removal of free speech. There is a political will for it. Ironically created by Trump lying so damn often.

There's definitely a liberal bias, but that's simply because media types are more likely to lean left. And it's compounded by the fact that most media outlets have abandoned the idea of impartial journalism, but that was spearheaded by Fox News.

Sure. But again, the point is not where the media is, it is where the left wants to put it.

The sad part is that the democrats just may open the door for the republicans to actually take control after they start the process. That seems, to me at least, been the lesson of recent history. The left makes a massive change in way power works to benefit themselves for a short time then the right comes in and uses that power FAR more effectively than the left ever could.

Definitely. The left expands government power and the right shows us why it's a bad idea. We'll see that in spades if they succeed in weakening the filibuster.

My god we will. I keep yelling that as loud as possible, remove the filibuster now to get some changes through and watch the republicans just fuck everything up across the board in 4 years.

The democrats just do not care though and I have no clue why. This actually does scare me though, removing the filibuster will inject an all new level of hyper partisan insanity that we have not yet seen.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Once again it's up to Republicans to defend free speech.

I am a Classical Liberal -- I oppose Censorship 100%.

I hope Republicans break Totalitarian hold Progressives have on USA.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Hopefully Social Media will lose protections of Section 230.

 

[Dadoalex]

In 1988 if Al's movie store didn't want to carry porn, no one made him.
In 2021 you are demanding that Al and all the other Als be forced to carry you brand of porn.

Don't look at me as the hypocrite, hypocrite. That's all you.

You and the rest of Trumpism demanding to use the government to enforce their personal petty grudges. How "conservative" and tiny-minded of you.

At this point, you're just plain being intellectually dishonest.

In other words, you're lying.

Either that, or you're batshit crazy. Most likely, both.

In any event, no rational basis exists for any sane, honest person to even attempt to have this conversation with you.

I point out the absolute hypocrisy of your position
While at the same time showing you mine has never changed
And you whine and call me "crazy?"
Well, I guess in the Land of Tiny Brain Stupidity, being "bat-shit crazy" is a real step up.

But, since you fit none of the criteria you laid out please explain why you, as a "conservative" are demanding the government use its power to ensure you get access to PRIVATE MEDIA.
Meanwhile, back in history class....
Remember the "Equal Access Rule" and how when broadcast media became dominated by "conservatives," "Liberals" complained and the response was...Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

That's right people like you responded that if Liberals couldn't achieve success while being blocked from fair access then then message deserved to die.

Right back at ya my Tiny Minded (among other things) moron.

 

[Dadoalex]

In 1988 if Al's movie store didn't want to carry porn, no one made him.
In 2021 you are demanding that Al and all the other Als be forced to carry you brand of porn.

Don't look at me as the hypocrite, hypocrite. That's all you.

You and the rest of Trumpism demanding to use the government to enforce their personal petty grudges. How "conservative" and tiny-minded of you.

At this point, you're just plain being intellectually dishonest.

In other words, you're lying.

Either that, or you're batshit crazy. Most likely, both.

In any event, no rational basis exists for any sane, honest person to even attempt to have this conversation with you.

So, you got nuthin'?

Seems those are some good points you're evading. All this pretense that private censorship is bad is nonsense. It's everyone's right to censor whatever is in their purview.

It is not nonsense. Private censorship IS bad, at least to the extreme that it has gone on recently.

Just because the government is not the one to solve it does not mean something is good nor does it mean that it should not be called out and rallied against as a people. Right now the market is to restrictive and ALL the talk is how the government can make it even more so.

Wrong.
Private censorship is
good business you don't let some shmoo on your website tear down your business;
Ethical, we're not talking about ideological discussions here, we ARE talking about the intentional spread of misinformation, rumor, hate, and any other word you'd care to add to describe the sludge you're defending.
LEGAL

Would you support me (as a non-Christian) marching into church on Sunday with a few cops in hand demanding these Christians listen to me? Using the force of government to do so?
How 'bout I take over the local TV station and begin showing Babylon 5 24x7?
By choosing to show one program a station CHOOSES not to show another. A form of CENSORSHIP.

Ideologically I support the ideal of free speech everywhere.
BUT
We know individuals (I mean look right on this board) will not act responsibly to censor themselves it therefore falls to the business owner to decide what will or will not appear on his venue. TBH, if you look at this from a purely ideological perspective those demanding this "protection" do so in violation of what the claim to be one of their foundational beliefs.

How's about I claim an hour of prime time every night on FOX, OANN, and NEWSMAX. Think any of them would say "sure, in the name of acting consistantly...." I mean honest to god, need we even ask the question?

The venue should decide what us shown. Any other option is just government propaganda.

 

[FA_Q2]

In 1988 if Al's movie store didn't want to carry porn, no one made him.
In 2021 you are demanding that Al and all the other Als be forced to carry you brand of porn.

Don't look at me as the hypocrite, hypocrite. That's all you.

You and the rest of Trumpism demanding to use the government to enforce their personal petty grudges. How "conservative" and tiny-minded of you.

At this point, you're just plain being intellectually dishonest.

In other words, you're lying.

Either that, or you're batshit crazy. Most likely, both.

In any event, no rational basis exists for any sane, honest person to even attempt to have this conversation with you.

So, you got nuthin'?

Seems those are some good points you're evading. All this pretense that private censorship is bad is nonsense. It's everyone's right to censor whatever is in their purview.

It is not nonsense. Private censorship IS bad, at least to the extreme that it has gone on recently.

Just because the government is not the one to solve it does not mean something is good nor does it mean that it should not be called out and rallied against as a people. Right now the market is to restrictive and ALL the talk is how the government can make it even more so.

Wrong.
Private censorship is
good business you don't let some shmoo on your website tear down your business;
Ethical, we're not talking about ideological discussions here, we ARE talking about the intentional spread of misinformation, rumor, hate, and any other word you'd care to add to describe the sludge you're defending.
LEGAL

Would you support me (as a non-Christian) marching into church on Sunday with a few cops in hand demanding these Christians listen to me? Using the force of government to do so?
How 'bout I take over the local TV station and begin showing Babylon 5 24x7?
By choosing to show one program a station CHOOSES not to show another. A form of CENSORSHIP.

Ideologically I support the ideal of free speech everywhere.
BUT
We know individuals (I mean look right on this board) will not act responsibly to censor themselves it therefore falls to the business owner to decide what will or will not appear on his venue. TBH, if you look at this from a purely ideological perspective those demanding this "protection" do so in violation of what the claim to be one of their foundational beliefs.

How's about I claim an hour of prime time every night on FOX, OANN, and NEWSMAX. Think any of them would say "sure, in the name of acting consistantly...." I mean honest to god, need we even ask the question?

The venue should decide what us shown. Any other option is just government propaganda.

Ya, because you did not bother to read anything I wrote.

Nothing in your post is something that I have disagreed with here.

 

[dudmuck]

Hopefully Social Media will lose protections of Section 230.

Section 230 is the only thing protecting this message board from getting sued due to the things you say.

 

[dblack]

Hopefully Social Media will lose protections of Section 230.

Section 230 is the only thing protecting this message board from getting sued due to the things you say.

The agenda here is to end free speech, despite claims to the contrary.

 

[22lcidw]

Once again it's up to Republicans to defend free speech.

The issue is that on some forums they might shut you down for practicing that free speech. There are forums called Cruise Critic as an example and the Coviid issue is on the table. There have been some people punished by being temporarily banned. Cruising is relaxation but the opening of the ships is being argued by who can and can not go. First amendment for some. And not others.