Condemnation of censorship

[EvMetro]

All you've done is satisfied your own confirmation bias.

Just keep on endorsing censorship. We all know you and dblack endorse this ugly type of cheating. There is a reason why lefties can't survive without censorship.

How is censorship "cheating?

Censorship is simply the suppression of free speech.

From Merriam webster:
Definition of cheat
(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud.
2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice.

Censorship deceives an audience by hiding parts of a story or situation. Censorship is used to trick an audience into believing a political narrative by omitting relevant information or information that could allow a different conclusion from the one being engineered with censorship.

 

[dblack]

Censorship deceives an audience by hiding parts of a story or situation. Censorship is used to trick an audience into believing a political narrative by omitting relevant information or information that could allow a different conclusion from the one being engineered with censorship.

Oh, ok. I thought you were referring to the election.

So, what you're talking about, re: "cheating", is basically what Fox News does?

 

[EvMetro]

But I doubt you know what constitutes censorship.

From wikipedia:
Censorship
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. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship.Wikipedia

OK, and from your link
The First Amendment protects against censorship imposed by law, but does not protect against corporate censorship, the restraint of speech of spokespersons, employees, or business associates by threatening monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace.

So what? Censorship is still the suppression of free speech, regardless of who does it or if it is legal or not. Censorship is simply the suppression of free speech.

 

[bendog]

We all know you blow goats. Don't try and pretend you don't.

Nice evasion, but you are only evading admitting that you endorse censorship. You cannot admit that you endorse it, and you can't disavow it.

You don't read minds, dummy.

I've got to admit I've never thought of private actions like people burning Beatles albums or Tipper Gore getting music publishers to "soften" lyrics as really censorship. So long as the govt cannot prevent publishing, if there's really a consumer demand, a market will satisfy it.

 

[EvMetro]

Oh, ok. I thought you referring to the election.

Yes, the election was cheating. Lefties cannot win elections without cheating, nor can they win political debates without cheating. Cheating is innate for lefties, it is the only way to support lefty ideology.

 

[bendog]

Censorship deceives an audience by hiding parts of a story or situation. Censorship is used to trick an audience into believing a political narrative by omitting relevant information or information that could allow a different conclusion from the one being engineered with censorship.

Oh, ok. I thought you referring to the election.

So, what you're talking about, re: "cheating", is basically what Fox News does?

No that's not ok. Censorship cannot be what occurs when a news outlet publishes an angle on some current event in a way to satisfy it's viewership. In fact, he seems to argue that Facebook can't block some users from posting, but at the same time he seems to argue Facebook has to publish those users who are deceiving other users by posting essentially propoganda.

If we want to define censorship to cover both govt/law and private corporations fine .... but Fox has every right to choose what stories to cover, and angle the facts to make it's viewers happy.

 

[EvMetro]

So long as the govt cannot prevent publishing,...

There is no need for the government to suppress free speech if the big tech companies who install the government can do it. As long as the government answers to the msm and social media, the msm and social media can do all the suppressing, while keeping their federal government arm out of it.

 

[dblack]

Oh, ok. I thought you referring to the election.

Yes, the election was cheating.

The election was cheating? What are you even talking about?

Lefties cannot win elections without cheating, nor can they win political debates without cheating. Cheating is innate for lefties, it is the only way to support lefty ideology.

You're the one spouting leftist tropes. Whining about monopolies, declaring businesses to be "public accommodations", trying to make discrimination illegal - that's straight up leftist dogma.

 

[EvMetro]

Censorship deceives an audience by hiding parts of a story or situation. Censorship is used to trick an audience into believing a political narrative by omitting relevant information or information that could allow a different conclusion from the one being engineered with censorship.

Oh, ok. I thought you referring to the election.

So, what you're talking about, re: "cheating", is basically what Fox News does?

No that's not ok. Censorship cannot be what occurs when a news outlet publishes an angle on some current event in a way to satisfy it's viewership. In fact, he seems to argue that Facebook can't block some users from posting, but at the same time he seems to argue Facebook has to publish those users who are deceiving other users by posting essentially propoganda.

If we want to define censorship to cover both govt/law and private corporations fine .... but Fox has every right to choose what stories to cover, and angle the facts to make it's viewers happy.

Facebook has nothing to do with the definition of censorship. Here is from Wikipedia:

Censorship
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. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship.Wikipedia

 

[EvMetro]

Oh, ok. I thought you referring to the election.

Yes, the election was cheating.

The election was cheating? What are you even talking about?

Lefties cannot win elections without cheating, nor can they win political debates without cheating. Cheating is innate for lefties, it is the only way to support lefty ideology.

You're the one spouting leftist tropes. Whining about monopolies, declaring businesses to be "public accommodations", trying to make discrimination illegal - that's straight up leftist dogma.

I am glad you have finally come to accept that censorship is simply the suppression of free speech, regardless of if it is legal or not, regardless of any private company rights, regardless of who does it or why. You do understand that censorship is cheating, and you do endorse this form of cheating like all lefties do.

 

[dblack]

Oh, ok. I thought you referring to the election.

Yes, the election was cheating.

The election was cheating? What are you even talking about?

Lefties cannot win elections without cheating, nor can they win political debates without cheating. Cheating is innate for lefties, it is the only way to support lefty ideology.

You're the one spouting leftist tropes. Whining about monopolies, declaring businesses to be "public accommodations", trying to make discrimination illegal - that's straight up leftist dogma.

I am glad you have finally come to accept that censorship is simply the suppression of free speech, regardless of if it is legal or not, regardless of any private company rights, regardless of who does it or why.

Yeah, I could tell you were equivocating right from the start, that you were trying to get a fight started over what "censorship" means. But arguing over definitions is boring, so I just went with your premise. In any case, the reason I don't oppose non-governmental censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

You do understand that censorship is cheating, and you do endorse this form of cheating like all lefties do.

I do??? I don't recall saying anything like that.

How are you getting along with your goats?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Oh, ok. I thought you referring to the election.

Yes, the election was cheating.

The election was cheating? What are you even talking about?

Lefties cannot win elections without cheating, nor can they win political debates without cheating. Cheating is innate for lefties, it is the only way to support lefty ideology.

You're the one spouting leftist tropes. Whining about monopolies, declaring businesses to be "public accommodations", trying to make discrimination illegal - that's straight up leftist dogma.

I am glad you have finally come to accept that censorship is simply the suppression of free speech, regardless of if it is legal or not, regardless of any private company rights, regardless of who does it or why. You do understand that censorship is cheating, and you do endorse this form of cheating like all lefties do.

Does free speech have value? Sometimes, much like the OP and this goofy thread, it doesn't. In said cases even with suppression nothing of any value is lost.

 

[EvMetro]

the reason I don't oppose non-governmental censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it

"Non-governmental" is not relevant to the meaning of censorship. The meaning of censorship that i posted from wiki is not my creation, it is from wiki. Censorship is simply the suppression of free speech, regardless of who does it or why. The reason why lefties do not oppose censorship is because they need to deceive or trick their audience into believing shit that doesn't stand up under its own merit. Lefties require the use of this type of cheating in order to survive. Of course lefties see nothing wrong with censorship.

 

[dblack]

the reason I don't oppose non-governmental censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it

"Non-governmental" is not relevant to the meaning of censorship.

It's relevant to the discussion. You want a blanket judgement on all censorship. You can't have it. I don't condemn non-government censorship. I do condemn censorship by the government. If that won't fit in your brain, I'm sorry.

 

[EvMetro]

Does free speech have value?

Oh yes, free speech has value. Lefties do not really know or care about the difference between freedom and liberty, but countless fathers, sons, and brothers have paid the ultimate price for freedom since our country was founded. Freedom is PRICELESS.

 

[EvMetro]

the reason I don't oppose non-governmental censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it

"Non-governmental" is not relevant to the meaning of censorship.

It's relevant to the discussion. You want a blanket judgement on all censorship. You can't have it. I don't condemn non-government censorship. I do condemn censorship by the government. If that won't fit in your brain, I'm sorry.

Yes, you endorse censorship as defined by Wikipedia. All lefties support this vile form of cheating. If lefties couldn't suppress free speech, leftyism would never survive.

 

[dblack]

the reason I don't oppose non-governmental censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it

"Non-governmental" is not relevant to the meaning of censorship.

It's relevant to the discussion. You want a blanket judgement on all censorship. You can't have it. I don't condemn non-government censorship. I do condemn censorship by the government. If that won't fit in your brain, I'm sorry.

Yes, you endorse censorship as defined by Wikipedia. All lefties support this vile form of cheating. If lefties couldn't suppress free speech, leftyism would never survive.

The reason I don't condemn all censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sometimes it's bad - especially if a government does it. But not always. I'm sorry this doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to construct. But your narrative is bullshit.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Oh yes, free speech has value.

That is purely subjective, not absolute. Now that I've determined you're not objective, the value of the content of your free speech just plummeted. See how that works?

Lefties do not really know or care about the difference between freedom and liberty, but countless fathers, sons, and brothers have paid the ultimate price for freedom since our country was founded.

Your liberty ends where mine begins. Actions have consequences. Pedantic bumper sticker slogans are boring. Be better.

Freedom is PRICELESS.

Free speech isn't.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

the reason I don't oppose non-governmental censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it

"Non-governmental" is not relevant to the meaning of censorship.

It's relevant to the discussion. You want a blanket judgement on all censorship. You can't have it. I don't condemn non-government censorship. I do condemn censorship by the government. If that won't fit in your brain, I'm sorry.

Yes, you endorse censorship as defined by Wikipedia. All lefties support this vile form of cheating. If lefties couldn't suppress free speech, leftyism would never survive.

All Qult45 radicals blow goats. If Qult45 couldn't blow goats, Qult45 would never survive.

 

[EvMetro]

the reason I don't oppose non-governmental censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it

"Non-governmental" is not relevant to the meaning of censorship.

It's relevant to the discussion. You want a blanket judgement on all censorship. You can't have it. I don't condemn non-government censorship. I do condemn censorship by the government. If that won't fit in your brain, I'm sorry.

Yes, you endorse censorship as defined by Wikipedia. All lefties support this vile form of cheating. If lefties couldn't suppress free speech, leftyism would never survive.

The reason I don't condemn all censorship is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sometimes it's bad - especially if a government does it. But not always. I'm sorry this doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to construct. But your narrative is bullshit.

Lefties will fight to defend cheating like a cat fights being shoved into a toilet. There is only one reason why lefties defend this kind of cheating, it is because they plan to cheat.