3 ms·

> What is new is that even democratic countries are controlling free speech via speech laws or often the private companies engaging in evaluating what's permiss

> What is new is that even democratic countries are controlling free speech via speech laws or often the private companies engaging in evaluating what's permissible speech and not above and beyond what laws require. That's not new at all. Here are a few of the many, many examples from the past century or so: - The Comstock laws, passed in the 1870s, criminalized the sending of "obscenity", contraceptives and sex toys via USPS [1] - There was literally a US agency called the "Office of Censorship" during WWII! [2] - The US entertainment industry denied employment to many people suspected of affiliating with Communism in the 1950s [3] - Lenny Bruce was arrested multiple times and eventually convicted for obscenity (saying e.g. "cocksucker" onstage) in the 1960s [4] - During the Jim Crow era, it was a misdemeanor in Mississippi to publish materials advocating social equality or interracial marriage between white and black people [5] - Laws against child pornography have apparently only existed in the US since 1977 (!) but still exist today [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce#Obscenity_arrests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce#Obscenity_arrest... [5] https://www.nps.gov/malu/learn/education/jim_crow_laws.htm https://www.nps.gov/malu/learn/education/jim_crow_laws.htm [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#History

mc32 7y ago
So It’s even worse because now it’s not only the government which can set rules where we can have some say in what the rules are given we elect the government, but now we are happy to have companies themselves without input from the government “do what’s best for us”.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  We've always been happy to have that happen. Take the Red Scare as an example: Gallup poll found that popular support for Joseph McCarthy peaked at 50% in 1954 [1]. In other words, a full half of the US population was in favor of companies blacklisting people from employment on the basis of their political views. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=ViXaw6NSkrYC&pg=PA263#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ViXaw6NSkrYC&pg=PA263#v=on...
  - lol2143651 7y ago
    I wonder what percentage of people favor companies blacklisting "racists".
  - chasd00 7y ago
    In the tech. industry "blacklisting people from employment on the basis of their political views." i would argue support is still around 50%.
    - Proziam 7y ago
      From what I've seen, it seems to me that it's even more than half now. There's a lot of 'cancel culture' in tech now. Lots of people are happy about the de-platforming of people they disagree with. People today seem to be more willing to kick someone off the internet, get someone fired from their work, or put someone on blast socially than they are willing to simply sit down and debate the person - or just mute/block/ignore/avoid them themselves.
- nl 7y ago
  Companies have always done this. See for example the Hollywood blacklist above. Newspapers have always refused to publish some things, and this right was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1974[1]. [1] https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspa...
- spaced-out 7y ago
  Before the internet, it was a handful of newspapers, radio, and TV stations which where the gatekeepers to public discourse.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Arguably some organs attempted balance via editors. Editors seemed to then exert balance on reporting on their reporters. Today I don’t think they act much as a moderating force.
sifar 7y ago
What is new is the scale at which it happens now, in the democratic countries. And ordinary people are not aware at the level at which this invades their lives. And what is worse, you are deemed a criminal/undesirable if you voluntarily try to escape this surveillance. Ellul was right. Propaganda and surveillance is more insidious in democracies than in authoritarian regimes.

mc32 7y ago

So It’s even worse because now it’s not only the government which can set rules where we can have some say in what the rules are given we elect the government, but now we are happy to have companies themselves without input from the government “do what’s best for us”.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
We've always been happy to have that happen. Take the Red Scare as an example: Gallup poll found that popular support for Joseph McCarthy peaked at 50% in 1954 [1]. In other words, a full half of the US population was in favor of companies blacklisting people from employment on the basis of their political views. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=ViXaw6NSkrYC&pg=PA263#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ViXaw6NSkrYC&pg=PA263#v=on...
- lol2143651 7y ago
  I wonder what percentage of people favor companies blacklisting "racists".
- chasd00 7y ago
  In the tech. industry "blacklisting people from employment on the basis of their political views." i would argue support is still around 50%.
  - Proziam 7y ago
    From what I've seen, it seems to me that it's even more than half now. There's a lot of 'cancel culture' in tech now. Lots of people are happy about the de-platforming of people they disagree with. People today seem to be more willing to kick someone off the internet, get someone fired from their work, or put someone on blast socially than they are willing to simply sit down and debate the person - or just mute/block/ignore/avoid them themselves.
nl 7y ago
Companies have always done this. See for example the Hollywood blacklist above. Newspapers have always refused to publish some things, and this right was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1974[1]. [1] https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspa...
spaced-out 7y ago
Before the internet, it was a handful of newspapers, radio, and TV stations which where the gatekeepers to public discourse.
- mc32 7y ago
  Arguably some organs attempted balance via editors. Editors seemed to then exert balance on reporting on their reporters. Today I don’t think they act much as a moderating force.

sifar 7y ago

What is new is the scale at which it happens now, in the democratic countries. And ordinary people are not aware at the level at which this invades their lives. And what is worse, you are deemed a criminal/undesirable if you voluntarily try to escape this surveillance. Ellul was right. Propaganda and surveillance is more insidious in democracies than in authoritarian regimes.