The bigger censorship offender- Private Sector or Government?

EvMetro

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2017
10,328
6,730
970
Censorship is censorship, regardless of if the government does it, or if the private sector does it. Our freedom of speech rights are supposed to protect us from government censorship, but the private sector is allowed to censor. On that note, who censors more speech?

For those who will be derailing this thread, here is the question again: who censors more speech- the government or the private sector? This is what the thread is about.
 
Private sector engages in self-censorship more than the government and to avoid censorship from the government.
 
When I moved from hourly to salary, the company made clear that I was to parrot the company line or risk being fired. Control of the money is control of speech.
 
The question makes no sense to me. In this wise, don't private entities freely associate and public institutions ideologically suppress?
 
I think of all people Justice Thomas has figured this one out.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are so large they do provide a common social service and so should be considered common providers who cannot refuse to provide service (in this case post legal speech) just like AT&T cannot refuse to provide service because they do not like what is being said during a call.

But to do this the half-wit Trump calls to get rid of Section 230 cannot be heeded.

That protects the common provider from the speech you or I say.
 
When I moved from hourly to salary, the company made clear that I was to parrot the company line or risk being fired. Control of the money is control of speech.
It's at a certain point, you move from a "labor representation" to your own position as being somehow representative of the company by what you do or say in public. I'm not a lawyer of course, but it would seem you do have a right to your opinion, wherever you happen to work, and perhaps all you need is a simple disclaimer.
"This article reflects my opinion and not the opinions or policies of [the company I work for]" etc., etc.
 
It seems to be a misuse of the word in calling private enterprise manipulation of information exchange "censorship". The term has historically been something done by governments, religions and other institutions of societal control. Of course, the argument can be made that enterprise can have a controlling effect, etc., but it would seem best to keep discourse as discrete as possible.
Thus, it is indeed by definition that government would be the "bigger offender", though saying that is not synonymous with claiming that the current situation in the U.S. is a serious problem of government censorship. In fact, the enormous problem in America is the woeful level of discourse itself, exacerbated by the incredibly poor level of understanding on the part of the general population. Thought processes are obviously poorly organized and incapable of seeing beyond superficiality.
 
here is the question again: who censors more speech- the government or the private sector?
It's corporate "private sector" industry with the government right behind them on every move.
Yes. They have become indistinguishable. The big tech corporations and government are in bed together.

It’s transparent to those of us with open eyes. The proof is they censor those who criticize the elite/establishment.
 
Wrong, dumbass.

From wikipedia:


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."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
 
It seems to be a misuse of the word in calling private enterprise manipulation of information exchange "censorship".
The left actively pushes the notion that suppressing speech is only called censorship when the government does it, but this is not true. Social media, political forum sites, employers, or any controlling body that has the power to censor speech can engage in censorship.
 
Good question, not sure. Government, by far, is the biggest hiring discriminator based on race/gender.....which is supposed to be illegal.
 
It seems to be a misuse of the word in calling private enterprise manipulation of information exchange "censorship".
The left actively pushes the notion that suppressing speech is only called censorship when the government does it, but this is not true. Social media, political forum sites, employers, or any controlling body that has the power to censor speech can engage in censorship.
What the "left" does is its own matter.
A person (real or legal) who does not agree with another and refuses to repeat or promote that with which he disagrees cannot honestly be called censor. A body which is supposed to be public, objective and serving the people is censoring when it refuses to allow public airing of ideas, etc. That isn't an issue of "right" or "left".
 
It seems to be a misuse of the word in calling private enterprise manipulation of information exchange "censorship".
The left actively pushes the notion that suppressing speech is only called censorship when the government does it, but this is not true. Social media, political forum sites, employers, or any controlling body that has the power to censor speech can engage in censorship.
A person (real or legal) who does not agree with another and refuses to repeat or promote that with which he disagrees cannot honestly be called censor. A body which is supposed to be public, objective and serving the people is censoring when it refuses to allow public airing of ideas, etc. That isn't an issue of "right" or "left".
The left actively pushes the notion that suppressing speech is only called censorship when the government does it, but this is not true. Social media, political forum sites, employers, or any controlling body that has the power to censor speech can engage in censorship.
 
It seems to be a misuse of the word in calling private enterprise manipulation of information exchange "censorship".
The left actively pushes the notion that suppressing speech is only called censorship when the government does it, but this is not true. Social media, political forum sites, employers, or any controlling body that has the power to censor speech can engage in censorship.
A person (real or legal) who does not agree with another and refuses to repeat or promote that with which he disagrees cannot honestly be called censor. A body which is supposed to be public, objective and serving the people is censoring when it refuses to allow public airing of ideas, etc. That isn't an issue of "right" or "left".
The left actively pushes the notion that suppressing speech is only called censorship when the government does it, but this is not true. Social media, political forum sites, employers, or any controlling body that has the power to censor speech can engage in censorship.
Apparently, that is how you see it. In any case, what the "left" does is beyond my control, and often of no interest.
 

Forum List

Back
Top