4 ms·

How is asking Fox for viewership numbers, "a chilling attempt at limiting speech"?

colpabar 6y ago
Would you feel the same way if house republicans sent letters to twitter asking how many users used the #blm hashtag last summer? It seems to me that we'd get lots of headlines declaring that they were attempting to silence anyone in favor of police reform.
LanceH 6y ago
It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.
- Alupis 6y ago
  > It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
    - Alupis 6y ago
      You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        You're deliberately mixing "Twitter bans me" with "Government imprisons me" and pretending they are the same thing so you can describe it as "private companies are allowed to limit free speech don't you see!" which is a misleading and incorrect description. You said "When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!" and that is explicitly /not/ what limiting free speech means; a) that's not the Government limiting Free Speech, that's the Government doing something else, and b) a private company limiting your speech isn't a private company limiting Free Speech, it's a private company doing something else. And Free Speech is too important for that equivocation to pass uncontested. > "Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out." I didn't point out a reason the Government cannot limit free speech, I pointed out that Twitter banning you is not anyone limiting Free Speech. The Government absolutely /can/ limit your Free Speech, that's why it's important and scary - of all organizations which exist only the Government can make it illegal for you to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. Jeff Bezos cannot lock you up for writing a blog post critical of Amazon or making a credible bomb threat, but a government could (potentially) lock you up for writing a blog post critical of the government and can do so for making a credible bomb threat. Your reason appears to be "the Government doesn't want to limit your Free Speech because it would make them look bad, so they lean on Twitter to ban people instead" - well I would far far prefer that, because having your Twitter account banned is less bad than being imprisoned, and more easily recovered from by posting somewhere else. You trying to claim this is limiting your Free Speech trivialises what it means for people in other countries to be imprisoned for being critical of the party in power (whether you call that a government or not). > "What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now" That's what a government is. > "and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. Again no; Twitter banning your account is a kind of censorship but not the same kind of censorship, even if they were paid by the President himself. You being arrested for having a Twitter account would be censorship, but it wouldn't be Twitter doing the arresting. The reason it's not (the same kind of / as bad) censorship is that you can make your own Twitter with blackjack and hookers and say "I love $politicalParty" all you like on it, and if everyone does that then Twitter fades into irrelevance. Just because Twitter is large and popular doesn't mean Twitter is obliged to provide service to everyone - subject to discrimination laws. If you phone up your local talk radio and they don't air your phonecall, that's not censorship.
- ineptech 6y ago
  Huh? How is this intimidation? It's not like spreading information to its viewers is something Fox was doing illegally or surreptitiously; it's their whole business. However many people they reached, I would think they'd be proud of the answer?
  - chrismcb 6y ago
    Did you read the letter that was written? It isn't the question about how many listened their were. It was the rest of the letter.
JustSomeNobody 6y ago
Look at the list. It's pretty much a right-wing only list.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Pretty much? The farthest left that list goes is Fox News.

Would you feel the same way if house republicans sent letters to twitter asking how many users used the #blm hashtag last summer? It seems to me that we'd get lots of headlines declaring that they were attempting to silence anyone in favor of police reform.

LanceH 6y ago

It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.

Alupis 6y ago
> It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
  - Alupis 6y ago
    You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      You're deliberately mixing "Twitter bans me" with "Government imprisons me" and pretending they are the same thing so you can describe it as "private companies are allowed to limit free speech don't you see!" which is a misleading and incorrect description. You said "When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!" and that is explicitly /not/ what limiting free speech means; a) that's not the Government limiting Free Speech, that's the Government doing something else, and b) a private company limiting your speech isn't a private company limiting Free Speech, it's a private company doing something else. And Free Speech is too important for that equivocation to pass uncontested. > "Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out." I didn't point out a reason the Government cannot limit free speech, I pointed out that Twitter banning you is not anyone limiting Free Speech. The Government absolutely /can/ limit your Free Speech, that's why it's important and scary - of all organizations which exist only the Government can make it illegal for you to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. Jeff Bezos cannot lock you up for writing a blog post critical of Amazon or making a credible bomb threat, but a government could (potentially) lock you up for writing a blog post critical of the government and can do so for making a credible bomb threat. Your reason appears to be "the Government doesn't want to limit your Free Speech because it would make them look bad, so they lean on Twitter to ban people instead" - well I would far far prefer that, because having your Twitter account banned is less bad than being imprisoned, and more easily recovered from by posting somewhere else. You trying to claim this is limiting your Free Speech trivialises what it means for people in other countries to be imprisoned for being critical of the party in power (whether you call that a government or not). > "What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now" That's what a government is. > "and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. Again no; Twitter banning your account is a kind of censorship but not the same kind of censorship, even if they were paid by the President himself. You being arrested for having a Twitter account would be censorship, but it wouldn't be Twitter doing the arresting. The reason it's not (the same kind of / as bad) censorship is that you can make your own Twitter with blackjack and hookers and say "I love $politicalParty" all you like on it, and if everyone does that then Twitter fades into irrelevance. Just because Twitter is large and popular doesn't mean Twitter is obliged to provide service to everyone - subject to discrimination laws. If you phone up your local talk radio and they don't air your phonecall, that's not censorship.
ineptech 6y ago
Huh? How is this intimidation? It's not like spreading information to its viewers is something Fox was doing illegally or surreptitiously; it's their whole business. However many people they reached, I would think they'd be proud of the answer?
- chrismcb 6y ago
  Did you read the letter that was written? It isn't the question about how many listened their were. It was the rest of the letter.

JustSomeNobody 6y ago

Look at the list. It's pretty much a right-wing only list.

jaywalk 6y ago
Pretty much? The farthest left that list goes is Fox News.