Government Censorship

[bluegate]

Cause this mess can still be salvaged if all of the censorious authoritarians on the left can become pro free speech again after seeing where their stance on free speech leads.

ThE LeFt tHe lEfT ThE LeFt tHe lEfT

Let's not pretend that Trump and his cronies weren't always going to follow the playbook of Orban, Putin and China's Xi.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nope, nice try though.

Ok so we just established by your logic you'd happily abandon principals, fucking warmonger.

You say this, after your entire response to Republican censorship has been "whatabout the dems tho you cared less when they did something".

Yes because there are two groups in this and the other group crying about censorship are the ones who were literally happily pushing for censorship not long before while insultingly calling it "FREEZE PEACH FREEZE PEACH" to mock those objecting to censorship

So enjoy your damn FREEZE PEACH because that's what you're getting now. Not freedom just frozen peaches of your own making.

"Rules for thee and not for me". Just be honest.

Exactly the left's position only crying censorship now they've had a minor and I mean minor taste of their own medicine. "No bad tactics only bad targets" literally is rules for thee but not for me and that's been the Left's mantra for years.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

ThE LeFt tHe lEfT ThE LeFt tHe lEfT

Let's not pretend that Trump and his cronies weren't always going to follow the playbook of Orban, Putin and China's Xi.

Y'all said this last fucking presidential term for Trump too and jack shit came of it.

"Oh stupid right wingers being upset over political assassinations, you brought this upon yourselves you deserve this"

Is the least good faith reading I can take from you reply.

 

[Asita]

The argument has always been “who gets to draw the line, who gets to decide what speech should be disallowed?” and because the left was in power at the time they were fine with it or just shallow thinkers who didn’t analyze the facts enough to realize they won’t always be the ones to decide. Now we see that the thing they opened the door to has blown the roof out of the house, so maybe they will realize that opening the door of censorship was not such a great idea after all.

No, that was never the argument.

The actual issue was your consistent misapplication of the First Amendment to situations where it simply didn’t apply; namely, when private companies or individuals exercised their own rights to criticize, boycott, or dissociate from speech they disagreed with. You labeled that as censorship and conflated consumer or corporate decisions with violations of constitutional rights, solely because those decisions aligned with political views you opposed.

In your own words, you objected to "platform holders and not some democratically elected body" having the ability to deplatform people. You argued that companies shouldn't be able to act without court involvement and said, "private corporations should not be able to cancel you out of existence like this."

But those are private actors making decisions about their own platforms, outside the legal scope of the First Amendment. That’s not a "selective interpretation" based on "who was in power at the time" that's just the basic structure of American constitutional law. The First Amendment restricts government action, not whether Spotify bans a podcast, a privately owned venue decides to cancel a controversial speaker, or a social media platform enforces its terms of service against a user who violates them.

Contrast that with what just happened: The current administration, via the FCC, openly threatens to revoke a broadcaster's license in direct response to unflattering commentary from one of its shows. That broadcaster - who, notably, is actively seeking FCC approval for a pending merger - then immediately suspends the show and pressures the host to demonstrate contrition, including a donation to Turning Point USA, a partisan political organization dedicated to promoting conservative ideology in schools.

That’s not a cultural response. That’s not a private company setting internal standards. That’s the government using regulatory power to punish political speech.

One is freedom of association. The other is state-facilitated ideological conformity, a First Amendment violation ripped straight from McCarthy’s playbook.

This isn’t a subtle distinction. It's fundamental. The difference lies in whether the state is using its power to force or punish someone’s speech or associations in retaliation for their viewpoint. If you want to talk about the dangers of censorship, this is exactly where the conversation should be. But you have to understand that that what we're seeing now is definitively not the same as what you have typically invoked the idea for in the past.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, that was never the argument.

The actual issue was your consistent misapplication of the First Amendment to situations where it simply didn’t apply; namely, when private companies or individuals exercised their own rights to criticize, boycott, or dissociate from speech they disagreed with. You labeled that as censorship and conflated consumer or corporate decisions with violations of constitutional rights, solely because those decisions aligned with political views you opposed.

Which is what happened with Jimmy Kimmel, private company, their decision.

Fun fact, under UK law unless it's support for a prescribed terrorist organisation then firing some-one for their political beliefs is illegal and is protected under freedom of expression laws.

Also did that fair banking bill go through yet in the USA because that's a step in the right direction.

In this case like others it's been people leaning to push to corporation to act, oddly not that hard this time apparently.

I will happily say both cases are censorship because under actual principal not written law freedom of speech should mean you can't get people silence for their speech and corporations shouldn't do it.


To put it in an abstract example: I have a loathing for the Twilight series, shouldn't Twilight fans have the right to have me fired for disliking it?

In your own words, you objected to "platform holders and not some democratically elected body" having the ability to deplatform people. You argued that companies shouldn't be able to act without court involvement and said, "private corporations should not be able to cancel you out of existence like this."

But those are private actors making decisions about their own platforms, outside the legal scope of the First Amendment. That’s not a "selective interpretation" based on "who was in power at the time" that's just the basic structure of American constitutional law. The First Amendment restricts government action, not whether Spotify bans a podcast, a privately owned venue decides to cancel a controversial speaker, or a social media platform enforces its terms of service against a user who violates them.

Contrast that with what just happened: The current administration, via the FCC, openly threatens to revoke a broadcaster's license in direct response to unflattering commentary from one of its shows. That broadcaster - who, notably, is actively seeking FCC approval for a pending merger - then immediately suspends the show and pressures the host to demonstrate contrition, including a donation to Turning Point USA, a partisan political organization dedicated to promoting conservative ideology in schools.

Only different here is Trump didn't hide the action like has happened before with pressure groups and campaigns etc.

That’s not a cultural response. That’s not a private company setting internal standards. That’s the government using regulatory power to punish political speech.

No-where in the law does it say the right to be paid or a platform is protected just the right to speak. As the left has reminded everyone for 10+ years at this point.

 

[Asita]

Which is what happened with Jimmy Kimmel, private company, their decision.

No, that’s not how this works.

Saying Kimmel’s suspension was just “a private company’s decision” is like pretending a store voluntarily closes after the mob shows up with torches...while ignoring the torches.

The FCC, under direct influence from the current administration, threatened a broadcaster’s license in response to politically inconvenient speech. That broadcaster, coincidentally seeking merger approval from the FCC, immediately suspends the host and asks for a donation to a partisan political group to smooth things over. That’s not corporate preference. It’s corporate survival under government pressure.

You don’t need a signed confession to see coercion. We don’t demand embezzlers post on billboards before we investigate financial crime. We follow the incentives and timing.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, that’s not how this works.

Saying Kimmel’s suspension was just “a private company’s decision” is like pretending a store voluntarily closes after the mob shows up with torches—while ignoring the torches.

Kind of my point lol

The FCC, under direct influence from the current administration, threatened a broadcaster’s license in response to politically inconvenient speech. That broadcaster, coincidentally seeking merger approval from the FCC, immediately suspends the host and asks for a donation to a partisan political group to smooth things over. That’s not corporate preference. It’s corporate survival under government pressure.

Yet we were told by the left that companies or industries making their own choices wasn't censorship it was only censorship if a bill was actually passed mandating said actions.

So the Comics code, the Hays code, also not censorship technically by that logic, nor was A Clockwork Orange being pulled from being shown in the UK.

I maintain it is, but the exact technical position and technicalities the left have been arguing to allow them to push censorship mean under the Lefts own actual position and rules it's not censorship unless the US government or Trump himself passes a bill stating said action must be taken. As such by the position of the Left Jimmy Kimmel isn't being censored on any level.

 

[Bedinsis]

Yet we were told by the left that companies or industries making their own choices wasn't censorship it was only censorship if a bill was actually passed mandating said actions.

So the Comics code, the Hays code, also not censorship technically by that logic, nor was A Clockwork Orange being pulled from being shown in the UK.

I maintain it is, but the exact technical position and technicalities the left have been arguing to allow them to push censorship mean under the Lefts own actual position and rules it's not censorship unless the US government or Trump himself passes a bill stating said action must be taken. As such by the position of the Left Jimmy Kimmel isn't being censored on any level.

Which leftists are you talking about?

 

[Silvanus]

Ok so we just established by your logic you'd happily abandon principals, fucking warmonger.

Nope. It's not surprising to see you devolving into shit-slinging so quickly though, that's classic you.

Yes because there are two groups in this and the other group crying about censorship [...]

Literally more whataboutism, then. "Yeah but the other guys", wah wah wah, and then you have the chutzpah to moan about whataboutism-- the lack of self-awareness is incredible. Whataboutism is all you do!

Exactly the left's position only crying censorship now they've had a minor and I mean minor taste of their own medicine. "No bad tactics only bad targets" literally is rules for thee but not for me and that's been the Left's mantra for years.

And it's also your mantra! All one big hypocritical family!

 

[Agema]

Which leftists are you talking about?

tHe LeFt. There's only one, what more needs to be defined?

I mean, they're collectivists, pretty much a hive mind when you think about it - not even individual opinions. So when you think about it that way, they're not even really people and may as well be murdered en masse.

 

[Asita]

Yet we were told by the left that companies or industries making their own choices wasn't censorship it was only censorship if a bill was actually passed mandating said actions.

So the Comics code, the Hays code, also not censorship technically by that logic, nor was A Clockwork Orange being pulled from being shown in the UK.

I maintain it is, but the exact technical position and technicalities the left have been arguing to allow them to push censorship mean under the Lefts own actual position and rules it's not censorship unless the US government or Trump himself passes a bill stating said action must be taken. As such by the position of the Left Jimmy Kimmel isn't being censored on any level.

Honestly, your argument mostly boils down to conflating legal free speech protections with a social grievance about platform access, then using that to justify a kind of “fair turnabout” attitude.

Saying “I’m entitled to a platform, and you got fired like so-and-so, so you can’t complain” is an oversimplification and a clear equivocation. It completely ignores the core issue that government coercion, like the FCC pressuring a broadcaster, is fundamentally different from private decisions made without state involvement.

While industry codes and bans like the Comics Code or A Clockwork Orange's UK ban are cultural forms of censorship, they differ fundamentally from when the government leverages regulatory power to force speech restrictions. That distinction matters a great deal for free speech protections.

Free speech isn’t a scorecard or a game of revenge. It’s a principle meant to protect expression, especially from government interference. Reducing it to “you should expect this treatment because others got it” - and using equivocation to make the claim - is intellectually lazy and misses why this truly matters.

 

[Agema]

A Clockwork Orange's UK ban

This is actually a myth - it was not banned in the UK*. In fact it had been nationally released and successful. However, it ended up being often cited in societal concerns about films and TV inciting violence in the populace, so Kubrick withdrew it about two years after its release.

* Nationally at least - by quirk of British law, restrictions on what could be shown in cinemas was devolved to local councils, so bans were local.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nope. It's not surprising to see you devolving into shit-slinging so quickly though, that's classic you.

I get internet context is hard to read for some but considering the accusations levelled at m I'd have thought you, and those reading that post would realise how much a piss take the "Fucking warmonger" comment was.

But then it's not surprising to me that you missed that point and rather than focus on the fact by your logic that piss take is accurate while by mine it's not you're getting performatively mad about it.

So yes just so we're clear mods I stand by that comment because by Silvanus's own logic it is a correct statement.

Literally more whataboutism, then. "Yeah but the other guys", wah wah wah, and then you have the chutzpah to moan about whataboutism-- the lack of self-awareness is incredible. Whataboutism is all you do!

Oh so what is it the left gets to insult Charlie Kirk and others because treat people how they would wish to be treated
or
It's mean and evil to deny people platforms and pay for their speech even when those same people have happily called for or celebrated the deplatforming of others.

Because you can't have both.

That's the ultimate hypocrisy at play here.

The entire position being taken by the left now is itself hypocritical. So tell me against why it's not relevant when the entire basis for this argument of "Oh the right is being hypocritical by going after people for comments" is based on said people also arguing for treating Charlie Kirk and others how they want to be treated and that justifying them being shitheads?

So no I reject being called a hypocrite by one of the voices on the side of massive hypocrisy.
I've explained my position.
You have rejected it.
Therefore by your own logic you must be a Warmonger because you'd sacrifice the principal of war being bad to go to war. Same logic you're using to imply I'm pro censorship, this a censor which yes would also be an insult.

And it's also your mantra! All one big hypocritical family!

Care to explain how so?
I explained how it's been the Left's Mantra "No back tactics only bad targets".


Oh additional note: In a thread about free speech and the right to make jokes I do find it very funny a facetious jokey comment got some here running to the mods to report me. Guess it's not jokes said person cares about just the side of who is allowed to make them and who is allowed to be targeted.

 

[Bedinsis]

I explained how it's been the Left's Mantra "No back tactics only bad targets".

What leftists are you talking about?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What leftists are you talking about?

 

[Agema]

What leftists are you talking about?

The leftyverse - the infinitude of opinions held by people who are left (or are not left, but can be pretended to be left when convenient).

Why debate with the lefty you're actually talking to, when you can instead just introduce a straw man lefty opinion from the leftyverse instead? As long as one lefty wrote something on social media once, it means all lefties believe it and can be criticised for it, even if the lefty you're talking explicitly repudiated it personally. Even if 999,999 out of a million lefties don't believe something bad, they're all guilty as sin just because that 1 in a million does. That's how the leftyverse works.

 

[tstorm823]

The leftyverse - the infinitude of opinions held by people who are left (or are not left, but can be pretended to be left when convenient).

Why debate with the lefty you're actually talking to, when you can instead just introduce a straw man lefty opinion from the leftyverse instead? As long as one lefty wrote something on social media once, it means all lefties believe it and can be criticised for it, even if the lefty you're talking explicitly repudiated it personally. Even if 999,999 out of a million lefties don't believe something bad, they're all guilty as sin just because that 1 in a million does. That's how the leftyverse works.

I appreciate the idea of arguing with the person in front of you rather than a strawman, but in the context of a thread of government censorship, what people are saying in other places that would be the target of censorship is very on topic. And it's probably helpful if people here are aware of the truly psychotic things that are said regularly online, that when you see right wing responses from the right that seem completely overblown, perhaps its just that you're not seeing the things they are responding to.

 

[Agema]

but in the context of a thread of government censorship, what people are saying in other places that would be the target of censorship is very on topic.

In the context of a thread on government censorship, one should probably refer to actual government censorship, not rehash a tired, decade-plus waffle about deplatforming.

 

[JoJo]

Having received a number of reports for posts in this thread, I have made the difficult decision to lock this thread. Which is not a decision I make lightly, but the thread seems to have thoroughly devolved into personal sniping and discussion of other forum users' alleged past positions rather than the topic at hand. My apologies to those who were not engaging in this.

I would ask all to re-read the Current Events sub-forum Code of Conduct:

Current Events Rules - Please Read Before Posting (Update: 5/8/2020)

Welcome to the new Current Events subforum! This subforum is dedicated to the discussion of current events. Update: 5/8/2020 TO CREATE A THREAD The point of this subforum is to discuss topical subjects with citable sources. It's not for creating threads just to start up discussions over your...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

In particular:

• Please have respect for your fellow forum users. Any remarks aimed at the individual rather than their argument, however slight, will be considered an infraction.
• Please do not carry grievances between threads. Keep focused on the topic at hand.

Thanks!