4 ms·

theres freedom of speech and then theres free broadcasting. theres a difference between blocking people from having conversations with each other, and choosing

by basch 7y ago

theres freedom of speech and then theres free broadcasting. theres a difference between blocking people from having conversations with each other, and choosing not to give away free broadcast. the problem right now is that there are probably around 20 gatekeepers for nearly all broadcast in the country. if you want the massess to hear you, you need to convince some of those 20 to lend you broadcast space. (facebook, google, twitter, disney, verizon, att, sony, microsoft, comcast, charter, iheartradio, nationalamusement, sinclair, tribune, gannett, hearst, advanced publications, associated press, thompsonreuters, discovery. who did i miss.) if you have a propaganda message to get out, you just need to feed it to those 20 places and get your generals up on their screens. those twenty companies conspiring (either directly, or just being aligned because taking the same side benefits them) to silence a message does violate the principal of freedom of speech in some way, but can we really compel them to offer conspiracy theorists equal air time? forcing them to displace speech they prefer for speech they down violates their own speech. im not sure telling these companies what they should and shouldnt be allowed to say is the right way forward, vs decentralizing communication platforms and dealing with the repercussions of a system that cant be censored. I would imagine that a future decentralized platform would end up similar to something like ublock filter lists. Some sort of default "these are the servers you want to follow to see most of the world news." For it to work, the default setting needs to be something most people can just click NEXT on and never think of again.

geofft 7y ago
Access to platforms (and the freedom of the press) is an important topic, yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the question of whether the FBI calling a group of people with odious opinions a national security threat endangers their freedom of speech.
- basch 7y ago
  >Not a trick question–honestly I would be willing to argue in favor of al-Qaeda's freedom of speech, including their freedom to advocate their ideology in the US. I guess where I am going is, do you favor their equal access to private broadcast services? If no, then its functionally equivalent to suppression their speech rights, given our current environment, because all public speech needs to exit out 1 of those 20 megaphones. Otherwise its like supporting everyones right to their own billboard, but saying the government or an oligopoly gets to control the land access of who gets to place one hear a highway. A billboard away from a highway is like a tree falling in a forest without someone to hear it, from an auditory perspective, it didnt happen.
  - geofft 7y ago
    I don't think it's functionally equivalent to suppression of their free speech rights, because I don't believe in free speech as an abstract virtue of society, I believe in free speech as a check on the powers of an oppressive government. If you want to tell people about the faults of the government and organize resistance, you're never going to get the support of established media channels, regardless of whether you're in a democracy or a monarchy or a communist state. But it is still important that you be able to set up person-to-person communication networks and hold meetings of like-minded people and try to persuade people to your cause without being imprisoned. I think al-Qaeda's speech acts are difficult to distinguish from a genuine homegrown resistance/revolutionary movement, and I worry that laws that criminalize advocating its ideology can also be used to crush a budding resistance movement and censor the spread of material the government finds embarrassing.

by basch 7y ago

geofft 7y ago

Access to platforms (and the freedom of the press) is an important topic, yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the question of whether the FBI calling a group of people with odious opinions a national security threat endangers their freedom of speech.

basch 7y ago
>Not a trick question–honestly I would be willing to argue in favor of al-Qaeda's freedom of speech, including their freedom to advocate their ideology in the US. I guess where I am going is, do you favor their equal access to private broadcast services? If no, then its functionally equivalent to suppression their speech rights, given our current environment, because all public speech needs to exit out 1 of those 20 megaphones. Otherwise its like supporting everyones right to their own billboard, but saying the government or an oligopoly gets to control the land access of who gets to place one hear a highway. A billboard away from a highway is like a tree falling in a forest without someone to hear it, from an auditory perspective, it didnt happen.
- geofft 7y ago
  I don't think it's functionally equivalent to suppression of their free speech rights, because I don't believe in free speech as an abstract virtue of society, I believe in free speech as a check on the powers of an oppressive government. If you want to tell people about the faults of the government and organize resistance, you're never going to get the support of established media channels, regardless of whether you're in a democracy or a monarchy or a communist state. But it is still important that you be able to set up person-to-person communication networks and hold meetings of like-minded people and try to persuade people to your cause without being imprisoned. I think al-Qaeda's speech acts are difficult to distinguish from a genuine homegrown resistance/revolutionary movement, and I worry that laws that criminalize advocating its ideology can also be used to crush a budding resistance movement and censor the spread of material the government finds embarrassing.