3 ms·

You confuse trade war with censorship. I'll explain the difference. Censorship is based on content: if you can say "long live Communist Party" but can't say "lo

by smsm42 7y ago

You confuse trade war with censorship. I'll explain the difference. Censorship is based on content: if you can say "long live Communist Party" but can't say "long live Republican Party", that's censorship. Trade war is based on origin: if you are not allowed to do trade (business) or provide services to residents of certain place, regardless of the content or purpose, that's embargo. > If that's not a free speech issue, there are no free speech issues. There are plenty, when exclusion is based on the content. This is not one of them. That's why filing a First Amendment lawsuit against trade embargo wouldn't do you any good.

jMyles 7y ago
> You confuse trade war with censorship. Indeed, but it's not for lack of trying. > exclusion is based on the content The pretext the speech falls short of inclusion in the category of "protected speech" because a different common thread can be drawn across its particulars is simply not convincing. Censoring speech in the basis of nationality instead of content doesn't making the underlying expression any less censored.
pyrale 7y ago
> Censorship is based on content: if you can say "long live Communist Party" but can't say "long live Republican Party", that's censorship. Using that definition, censoring all publications of a given group (say, black people) would not be censorship. That's a big hole in the definition.
- habnds 7y ago
  discriminating on the basis of race is banned separately. This would probably be addressed by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, not free speech under the first.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > Using that definition, censoring all publications of a given group (say, black people) would not be censorship It's not censorship, it's discrimination. Bad thing, but different. If it was censored because these people write about specific racial issues, it'd be censorship. If it's blanket denial regardless of the content, it's racial discrimination, not censorship. It doesn't mean it's not bad - one could argue it's even worse since it doesn't leave you any chance - you could probably talk in another way to route around censorship but you can't stop being black - but it's not that issue, it's a different one.
  - pyrale 7y ago
    Imagine now that you ban all writings from communists, including their love stories. It is not racist, and according to the definition it is not censorship. This form of behaviour was used a lot in ancient regimes, and known as censorship. The definition you use seems to be a legal one rather than the usual one.

by smsm42 7y ago

jMyles 7y ago

> You confuse trade war with censorship. Indeed, but it's not for lack of trying. > exclusion is based on the content The pretext the speech falls short of inclusion in the category of "protected speech" because a different common thread can be drawn across its particulars is simply not convincing. Censoring speech in the basis of nationality instead of content doesn't making the underlying expression any less censored.

pyrale 7y ago

> Censorship is based on content: if you can say "long live Communist Party" but can't say "long live Republican Party", that's censorship. Using that definition, censoring all publications of a given group (say, black people) would not be censorship. That's a big hole in the definition.

habnds 7y ago
discriminating on the basis of race is banned separately. This would probably be addressed by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, not free speech under the first.
smsm42 7y ago
> Using that definition, censoring all publications of a given group (say, black people) would not be censorship It's not censorship, it's discrimination. Bad thing, but different. If it was censored because these people write about specific racial issues, it'd be censorship. If it's blanket denial regardless of the content, it's racial discrimination, not censorship. It doesn't mean it's not bad - one could argue it's even worse since it doesn't leave you any chance - you could probably talk in another way to route around censorship but you can't stop being black - but it's not that issue, it's a different one.
- pyrale 7y ago
  Imagine now that you ban all writings from communists, including their love stories. It is not racist, and according to the definition it is not censorship. This form of behaviour was used a lot in ancient regimes, and known as censorship. The definition you use seems to be a legal one rather than the usual one.