CDZ Free Speech Threatened by Censorship Extremists | Mercola.com

[K9Buck]

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed...

A point not in dispute. Try to stick to the topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are accusing fairness with legality.

Really? I don't think so. I'm saying it's not fair to take away property rights.

I meant to say you are -confusing- fairness with legality, but I think you got what I was trying to say. Anyway, there can be problem with property rights when a select few have most of the property. Reminds me of a line from Thomas Jefferson in regards to money:
"
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."
"

Source:

Thomas Jefferson Quote - Liberty Quotes Blog

Quotation by Thomas Jefferson: If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their...

quotes.liberty-tree.ca

The problem with this analogy is that the internet is infinite – there are ample opportunities for all voices to be heard; nothing is being ‘censored,’ no viewpoints are being ‘silenced.’

 

[Thoth001]

And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.

How can a private entity be unjust in regards to what it wants/permits on its platform? Have the laws of private property been held in abeyance?

You are confusing fairness with legality. They are not the same thing.

True.

And however ‘unfair’ one might perceive how a private media entity might edit its content, how it might edit its content neither constitutes ‘censorship’ nor ‘violates’ free speech – where free speech is the sole purview of the law.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private entities such as social media platforms.

Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

In 2014, the United States was added to Reporters Without Borders (RWB)'s list of "Enemies of the Internet", a group of countries with the highest level of Internet censorship and surveillance. RWB stated that the U.S. has "undermined confidence in the Internet and its own standards of security" and that "U.S. surveillance practices and decryption activities are a direct threat to investigative journalists, especially those who work with sensitive sources for whom confidentiality is paramount and who are already under pressure."[1]

Internet censorship in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[surada]

Politicalchic was homeschooled by people that didn't know that Hitler broke with the socialists in `1926 and purged the party of them in 1933, He killed them or put them in prison. Mussolini also started out as a socialist.

You are indeed a FOOL.

Nope, but I did studied Modern European History in school... actually I went to some of the best private schools. Have you read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? Hitler courted the German Industrialists and never nationalized anything. He USED the socialists in the early 1920s in his rise to power. Same with Mussolini.

 

[surada]

You can't understand Nazi Germany from a soundbite.

In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide.

He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.

snip

Yet, by this very definition, Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Marxism is defined by class war, and socialism is accomplished with the total victory of the Proletariat over the ruling classes.

By contrast, Hitler offered an alliance between labour and capital in the form of corporatism – with the express purpose of preventing class war. Marxists regarded this as one of the stages of capitalist development …

 

[K9Buck]

By contrast, Hitler offered an alliance between labour and capital in the form of corporatism

Sort of like the alliance between major American corporations and the Democratic Party, as exemplified by the MLB acquiescing to President Biden's demands to move the all star game in order to punish those that oppose the party.

 

[K9Buck]

Hitler courted the German Industrialists and never nationalized anything.

Hitler didn't need to nationalize industry. Hitler gave them options: silver or lead.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A link where one must register to open it is as useless as a précis which gives no sources for the article's accusations.

It does make for quite an irony, an article complaining about censorship, but which forces you to jump through gratuitous hoops to read it.

Though I'd probably agree with his points about censorship, if I were allowed to freely read them, Joseph Mercola is a fraud, a quack, a kook, and a slick con-artist. He has no credibility whatsoever with me, nor with any sane, informed person, and I sure as Hell am, not going to jump through any of his hoops of give him any money or information, in exchange for reading anything from him.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There are two types of people, those that are of God and those that are of Satan. The Democratic Party and its supporters belong to the latter.

Whoa, I think that's far too drastic. I should probably point out that I'm generally left wing. Just listening to the audio book version of "Consequences of Capitalism", one of the authors being Noam Chomsky. I do believe in a fair amount of freedom to own guns though and I'm also against vaccines, which is something that is more associated with those on the right than the left.

It sounds extreme, but it's the plain truth.

Look at nearly any issue where matters of political controversy align with matters of good vs,. evil, reason vs. madness, and with very few exceptions, you'll find Democraps standing solidly on the side of evil/madness.

 

[K9Buck]

Joseph Mercola is a fraud, a quack, a kook, and a slick con-artist.

I know nothing about the guy, but your description of him sounds like an operative at CNN or MSNBC squawking about how Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Mercola is a great doctor and it is a great site that I have been going to for years.

 

[Circe]

I'm also considering buying The Truth About Covid, don't want to pre order it though, what if I pay for a pre order and it gets banned type deal. And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.

Order a hard copy, not a digital book, that's my experience. They suck back out of your account (without giving the money back) digital books they decide to censor, but they can't take back a hard copy, assuming they send it in the first place. Now I'll look that one up, thanx.

 

[phoenyx]

Too much work, laugh . How about you pick a particular bullet point and we'll start with that?

Oh. How about you start with the first one then we'll deal with them in sequence?

Sounds like a plan. Alright, the first point:
"A number of elected government officials are using their positions of power to pressure tech platforms into silencing voices of the opposition, or simply those whose speech they don’t agree with"

From the linked article in the OP (links are in the bolded numbers):
**
Disturbingly, a number of elected government officials are using their positions of power to actually pressure tech platforms into silencing voices of the opposition, or simply those whose speech they don’t agree with. As reported by Jonathan Turley:2

“… Sanders’ … view … is in sharp contrast to his Democratic colleagues who celebrated the ban and called for more censorship. One of the leading voices of censorship in the Senate is Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) [who] chastised Big Tech for waiting so long to issue such bans: ‘The question isn’t why Facebook and Twitter acted, it’s what took so long and why haven’t others?’ …

Democrats have abandoned long-held free speech values in favor of corporate censorship … When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.”

Public Officials Call for Selective Elimination of Free Speech
Other public officials calling for the selective elimination of free speech include:

• Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who pressed Facebook and Twitter to make their bans of Donald Trump permanent
• California U.S. House Democrats Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, who went so far as to demand a dozen cable, satellite and streaming TV companies censor or remove entire news networks (Fox News, Newsmax and OANN)3
• Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Doyle, who asked Facebook and Twitter to remove a dozen accounts, including mine, from their platforms during a House hearing on disinformation and extremism 4
• Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, who recently urged Twitter to expand its censorship categories to prevent the sharing of “climate denialism” views 5

**

There's more, but pretty sure I'm pushing how much I can quote. Incidentally, I believe in Climate Change (or Climate Chaos as some are now calling it), but I think people should be allowed to express their views on it even if those views are that they don't believe in it.

 

[phoenyx]

I'm also considering buying The Truth About Covid, don't want to pre order it though, what if I pay for a pre order and it gets banned type deal. And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.

Order a hard copy, not a digital book, that's my experience. They suck back out of your account (without giving the money back) digital books they decide to censor, but they can't take back a hard copy, assuming they send it in the first place. Now I'll look that one up, thanx.

Interesting, I'll keep that in mind, and you're welcome .

 

[phoenyx]

There are two types of people, those that are of God and those that are of Satan. The Democratic Party and its supporters belong to the latter.

Whoa, I think that's far too drastic. I should probably point out that I'm generally left wing. Just listening to the audio book version of "Consequences of Capitalism", one of the authors being Noam Chomsky. I do believe in a fair amount of freedom to own guns though and I'm also against vaccines, which is something that is more associated with those on the right than the left.

It sounds extreme, but it's the plain truth.

Look at nearly any issue where matters of political controversy align with matters of good vs,. evil, reason vs. madness, and with very few exceptions, you'll find Democraps standing solidly on the side of evil/madness.

I just don't see it that way. However, there are a few points that I don't agree with the left:

1- Gun control. In an ideal world, I think all guns should be registered- this would make it easier to determine who used a given gun in a homocide. However, we don't live in such a world, and my own country (Canada) has made it clear that if guns are registered, they can be easily confiscated. So what to do in this less than ideal world? Still not quite sure. I'm definitely not a fan of a lot of the gun confiscations due to changing laws though.

2- Covid 19. The reliability of the tests, the masks and especially the vaccines. The right seems to be far more skeptical than the left on all of these things and so am I. I'm especially against the vaccines.

 

[phoenyx]

And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.

How can a private entity be unjust in regards to what it wants/permits on its platform? Have the laws of private property been held in abeyance?

You are confusing fairness with legality. They are not the same thing.

True.

And however ‘unfair’ one might perceive how a private media entity might edit its content, how it might edit its content neither constitutes ‘censorship’ nor ‘violates’ free speech – where free speech is the sole purview of the law.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private entities such as social media platforms.

It seems that if a government official isn't making the decisions directly, you think they should be in the clear. Personally, I don't care what title the person controlling a given communication platform has- the bottom line is they are controlling what is and isn't said in their platform. When we're talking about big platforms such as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, that really matters.

Also, I think that Thoth made a good response to your post here:

CDZ - Free Speech Threatened by Censorship Extremists | Mercola.com

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed... A point not in dispute. Try to stick to the topic.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[K9Buck]

phoenyx

The problem with a national gun registry is that the corrupt federal government will use it to target and disarm law-abiding citizens.

 

[phoenyx]

phoenyx

The problem with a national gun registry is that the corrupt federal government will use it to target and disarm law-abiding citizens.

That's exactly what I'm concerned about. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need to worry about that, but we don't live in such a world unfortunately -.-

 

[LA RAM FAN]

A link where one must register to open it is as useless as a précis which gives no sources for the article's accusations.

Either way, you SUPPORT suppression of speech and truth.

Yeah him and Clayton both.

 

[Leo123]

How can a private entity be unjust in regards to what it wants/permits on its platform? Have the laws of private property been held in abeyance?

A private entity ceases to be private when they gain significant and durable market power. The long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. Legally that is called a monopoly. Microsoft is a good example. They limited their platform by making it difficult to run other browsers. Now we have social media like Twitter banning words from certain people they don't like and censoring content based on political views or their on interpretation of 'hate speech.'

Parler (alternative to Twitter) was supported when Google, Apple and Amazon refused to have Parler use their servers. Seems like an illegal monopoly to me.