3 ms·

>Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically

>Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. Sounds like censorship to me, just a socially acceptable form of it. The "only governments are capable of censorship because my understanding of the idea of freedom of speech deliberately stops at the First Amendment" meme needs to die.

pgwhalen 10y ago
Meme? That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. Censorship is a broader term, but don't invoke "free speech" if you don't want it to apply to the government case.
- clevernickname 10y ago
  What use is the legal right to speech if your neighbors will bash your head in for it? Freedom of speech is not just the right, but also the idea of a society that tolerates it. This is what bothers me: Every time an internet corporation deletes someone's account for wrongthink, a herd of crypto-facists pops up to remind everyone that the First only pertains to government censorship (or even erroneously claim that only governments are capable of censorship). They are missing (and indeed proving) the point. The point is that they live in a society that encourages the limitation of expression, and that they are happy about this as long as they don't like the things being censored.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    In this (US) society, you can speak your mind just about all you want without worrying about the government sending jack-booted thugs to haul you away. However, this does not mean that a private company is obligated to give you a free platform to disseminate your speech. You can go make yourself a sign and stand on a street corner if you want, but no one has an obligation to listen to you, or to help you spread your speech. This is why the distinction about government censorship is so important. People like you seem to think that private entities have an obligation to host other peoples' speech. If some neo-Nazis knocked on your door and asked to post a bunch of their signs on your lawn, would you agree to it? It's only a problem when the government censors because there's only one government, and they have enforcers who can use deadly force. If a private party censors you by refusing to help air your views, you can go somewhere else, like a street corner, and you don't have to worry about going to jail or being shot.
    - Aaron1011 10y ago
      > It's only a problem when the government censors because there's only one government, and they have enforcers who can use deadly force. I would add that it's also because the government can censor people when it otherwise wouldn't be involved - a person hosting a blog with a third party, for example. Ordinarily, only that third party gets to decide whether or not to provide a platform for your data.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. No, it damn well is not. Freedom of speech is the principle, the first amendment is the law. The law protects a principle our society has deemed important. The principle exists with or without a government.
  - Aaron1011 10y ago
    In this case, it certainly does only apply to the government. You can't force another person or entity to host your content - they're allowed to set whatever conditions they want to.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      You can't force another person or entity to host your content Which literally nobody here suggested that they should be obligated to do so. What's your point?

pgwhalen 10y ago

Meme? That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. Censorship is a broader term, but don't invoke "free speech" if you don't want it to apply to the government case.

clevernickname 10y ago
What use is the legal right to speech if your neighbors will bash your head in for it? Freedom of speech is not just the right, but also the idea of a society that tolerates it. This is what bothers me: Every time an internet corporation deletes someone's account for wrongthink, a herd of crypto-facists pops up to remind everyone that the First only pertains to government censorship (or even erroneously claim that only governments are capable of censorship). They are missing (and indeed proving) the point. The point is that they live in a society that encourages the limitation of expression, and that they are happy about this as long as they don't like the things being censored.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  In this (US) society, you can speak your mind just about all you want without worrying about the government sending jack-booted thugs to haul you away. However, this does not mean that a private company is obligated to give you a free platform to disseminate your speech. You can go make yourself a sign and stand on a street corner if you want, but no one has an obligation to listen to you, or to help you spread your speech. This is why the distinction about government censorship is so important. People like you seem to think that private entities have an obligation to host other peoples' speech. If some neo-Nazis knocked on your door and asked to post a bunch of their signs on your lawn, would you agree to it? It's only a problem when the government censors because there's only one government, and they have enforcers who can use deadly force. If a private party censors you by refusing to help air your views, you can go somewhere else, like a street corner, and you don't have to worry about going to jail or being shot.
  - Aaron1011 10y ago
    > It's only a problem when the government censors because there's only one government, and they have enforcers who can use deadly force. I would add that it's also because the government can censor people when it otherwise wouldn't be involved - a person hosting a blog with a third party, for example. Ordinarily, only that third party gets to decide whether or not to provide a platform for your data.
Karunamon 10y ago
That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. No, it damn well is not. Freedom of speech is the principle, the first amendment is the law. The law protects a principle our society has deemed important. The principle exists with or without a government.
- Aaron1011 10y ago
  In this case, it certainly does only apply to the government. You can't force another person or entity to host your content - they're allowed to set whatever conditions they want to.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    You can't force another person or entity to host your content Which literally nobody here suggested that they should be obligated to do so. What's your point?