3 ms·

The term "censorship" has always meant governmental restriction on speech, dating back to Roman times. "Censorship" by a private party is a modern extension of

The term "censorship" has always meant governmental restriction on speech, dating back to Roman times. "Censorship" by a private party is a modern extension of the meaning of the term and it is not universally accepted.

paganel 6y ago
Correct, but the spirit of the law says that it should be universally accepted. Otherwise we'll all end up like in Orban's Hungary, with almost all the media technically in private hands but practically speaking in Orban's pockets (if I'm not mistaken a similar thing is now happening in Poland).
- emilsedgh 6y ago
  The media is oddly, oddly quit regarding Julian Assange's case. I cannot help but think it's orchestrated.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Nearly every media institution has reported on every development of the Assange case as it happened, including this past week, when they all covered the latest outcome in the case. And there has been no further news, so the news media moved on to other news, like the siege of the U.S. Capitol building.
- garaetjjte 6y ago
  There are still independent media in Poland. (like third most watched TV station, Discovery-owned TVN) (though ruling party likely looks how to buy them; eg. recently national oil company bought publisher of several local newspapers)
- gamblor956 6y ago
  The spirit of the law says that it should be universally accepted No it doesn't. In the U.S., the law is explicitly clear that censorship by the government is subject to strict limitations, but censorship by private parties is part of those parties' exercise of their own rights to free speech. Compelling one person to spread the speech of another person is a form of censorship that censors the former's opposition to the latter's speech. There are only a handful of cases that compel private parties to tolerate speech they disagree with on their own property (basically, malls), and the scope has been narrowed over time. (See Pruneyard and subsequent cases.)
  - paganel 6y ago
    I've just mentioned a concrete case of how one can subvert the letter of the law in order to suppress said free speech, with no free speech you have a very high risk of returning to tyranny (to use one of the terms most feared by the guys who wrote the Federalist Papers), and it is my understanding that that fear (among a very few others) permeates the whole basic law of the United States (i.e. its Constitution). Things like "private parties", property rights, I'd say that even the idea of "government", come after that fear has been dealt with.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Trump was America's Orban, if I understand what you were saying. Forcing Facebook, Twitter, et al, to carry his speech, as putative head of the U.S. government, is the tyranny and censorship that you should be railing against, because it violates FB's and Twitter's constitutional rights not to transmit violent speech that they disagree with. Private property, private rights, and government, have all existed before the "fear" (whatever it is you mean by that) was dealt with.
      - paganel 6y ago
        > have all existed before the "fear" (whatever it is you mean by that) was dealt with. I'm talking about the basis of the US Constitution, its "spirit", so to speak. My reading of the Federalist Papers is that one of the main reasons-to-be of the Constitution was to avoid tyranny, the men that wrote that thing down put things like respecting private property or even what form of government to use after that. I admit, maybe I'm wrong on that interpretation (I've read them about three years ago), but I've recently started reading a selection of Anti-federalist Papers and I stand by my opinion. > FB's and Twitter's constitutional rights Again, there was nothing in the Federalist Papers (nor in the Constitution) about respecting the rights of private, abstract, soulless entities. Yes, I know about the relatively recent decision that gave those corporations a "political soul" (so to speak), but that decision had nothing to do with the original spirit of the basic law on which the USA was founded.
adrianN 6y ago
Private parties having the means to shape public discourse is a fairly modern phenomenon too.

paganel 6y ago

Correct, but the spirit of the law says that it should be universally accepted. Otherwise we'll all end up like in Orban's Hungary, with almost all the media technically in private hands but practically speaking in Orban's pockets (if I'm not mistaken a similar thing is now happening in Poland).

emilsedgh 6y ago
The media is oddly, oddly quit regarding Julian Assange's case. I cannot help but think it's orchestrated.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Nearly every media institution has reported on every development of the Assange case as it happened, including this past week, when they all covered the latest outcome in the case. And there has been no further news, so the news media moved on to other news, like the siege of the U.S. Capitol building.
garaetjjte 6y ago
There are still independent media in Poland. (like third most watched TV station, Discovery-owned TVN) (though ruling party likely looks how to buy them; eg. recently national oil company bought publisher of several local newspapers)
gamblor956 6y ago
The spirit of the law says that it should be universally accepted No it doesn't. In the U.S., the law is explicitly clear that censorship by the government is subject to strict limitations, but censorship by private parties is part of those parties' exercise of their own rights to free speech. Compelling one person to spread the speech of another person is a form of censorship that censors the former's opposition to the latter's speech. There are only a handful of cases that compel private parties to tolerate speech they disagree with on their own property (basically, malls), and the scope has been narrowed over time. (See Pruneyard and subsequent cases.)
- paganel 6y ago
  I've just mentioned a concrete case of how one can subvert the letter of the law in order to suppress said free speech, with no free speech you have a very high risk of returning to tyranny (to use one of the terms most feared by the guys who wrote the Federalist Papers), and it is my understanding that that fear (among a very few others) permeates the whole basic law of the United States (i.e. its Constitution). Things like "private parties", property rights, I'd say that even the idea of "government", come after that fear has been dealt with.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Trump was America's Orban, if I understand what you were saying. Forcing Facebook, Twitter, et al, to carry his speech, as putative head of the U.S. government, is the tyranny and censorship that you should be railing against, because it violates FB's and Twitter's constitutional rights not to transmit violent speech that they disagree with. Private property, private rights, and government, have all existed before the "fear" (whatever it is you mean by that) was dealt with.
    - paganel 6y ago
      > have all existed before the "fear" (whatever it is you mean by that) was dealt with. I'm talking about the basis of the US Constitution, its "spirit", so to speak. My reading of the Federalist Papers is that one of the main reasons-to-be of the Constitution was to avoid tyranny, the men that wrote that thing down put things like respecting private property or even what form of government to use after that. I admit, maybe I'm wrong on that interpretation (I've read them about three years ago), but I've recently started reading a selection of Anti-federalist Papers and I stand by my opinion. > FB's and Twitter's constitutional rights Again, there was nothing in the Federalist Papers (nor in the Constitution) about respecting the rights of private, abstract, soulless entities. Yes, I know about the relatively recent decision that gave those corporations a "political soul" (so to speak), but that decision had nothing to do with the original spirit of the basic law on which the USA was founded.

adrianN 6y ago

Private parties having the means to shape public discourse is a fairly modern phenomenon too.