3 ms·

Doesn't sound like he did at all. The first cartoon states that you should have the right to say everything you feel you should say, while the second states tha

Doesn't sound like he did at all. The first cartoon states that you should have the right to say everything you feel you should say, while the second states that no one is forced to listen to you.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
im3w1l 7y ago
"If you are yelled at, boycotted [due to pressure from China], have your show cancelled [due to pressure from China], get banned from an internet community [due to pressure from China], your free speech rights aren't being violated"
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  "It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole." I don't think it's unfair to presume that the author wasn't considering "people" to be "nations" in this context.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Too bad, because according to his narrow free speech == 1st amendment view, it doesn't matter where the pressure comes from, as long as it's not the US government. "The people" he refers to end up being multinational corporations, and they're just banning the "assholes" that are endangering their profits. Or even just drawing attention to them: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/media/cartoonist-fired-from-farm-news.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/media/cartoonist... Of course he knew perfectly well that "the people" are giant corporations. But because he agreed with the censorship at the time, he chose to frame it as somehow democratic.
- iamasoftwaredev 7y ago
  Well, they aren't. You might notice the part where the people who offended china are lauded and the cowardly companies are being lambasted for failing to stand up to china.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    ...and therefore the companies didn't try to censor? You've made a very convincing argument - if those that are censored are afterwards lauded, then the lauding means they're not being censored. But if they're condemned, that means it's people refusing to listen - again not censorship. And if they're neither lauded nor condemned, because no-one heard of them because the censorship was successful, well then we don't even talk about it. No matter what happens, it's not censorship!
    - iamasoftwaredev 7y ago
      I didn't say it wasn't censorship, I said it's not a free speech issue and I stand by that. Blizzard is free to associate with who they want. They want to associate with China. What if instead of china he started talking about how white people need to start driving the lesser races out? Should blizzard still be required to associate with him? Is anything less than business as normal too much of an impingement on his rights? What happened to him is just business. If you don't like it (I don't), then blame capitalism (I do).

Doesn't sound like he did at all. The first cartoon states that you should have the right to say everything you feel you should say, while the second states that no one is forced to listen to you.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

im3w1l 7y ago

"If you are yelled at, boycotted [due to pressure from China], have your show cancelled [due to pressure from China], get banned from an internet community [due to pressure from China], your free speech rights aren't being violated"

oarsinsync 7y ago
"It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole." I don't think it's unfair to presume that the author wasn't considering "people" to be "nations" in this context.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Too bad, because according to his narrow free speech == 1st amendment view, it doesn't matter where the pressure comes from, as long as it's not the US government. "The people" he refers to end up being multinational corporations, and they're just banning the "assholes" that are endangering their profits. Or even just drawing attention to them: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/media/cartoonist-fired-from-farm-news.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/media/cartoonist... Of course he knew perfectly well that "the people" are giant corporations. But because he agreed with the censorship at the time, he chose to frame it as somehow democratic.
iamasoftwaredev 7y ago
Well, they aren't. You might notice the part where the people who offended china are lauded and the cowardly companies are being lambasted for failing to stand up to china.
- deogeo 7y ago
  ...and therefore the companies didn't try to censor? You've made a very convincing argument - if those that are censored are afterwards lauded, then the lauding means they're not being censored. But if they're condemned, that means it's people refusing to listen - again not censorship. And if they're neither lauded nor condemned, because no-one heard of them because the censorship was successful, well then we don't even talk about it. No matter what happens, it's not censorship!
  - iamasoftwaredev 7y ago
    I didn't say it wasn't censorship, I said it's not a free speech issue and I stand by that. Blizzard is free to associate with who they want. They want to associate with China. What if instead of china he started talking about how white people need to start driving the lesser races out? Should blizzard still be required to associate with him? Is anything less than business as normal too much of an impingement on his rights? What happened to him is just business. If you don't like it (I don't), then blame capitalism (I do).