5 ms·

The people on the "right side of history" are usually fighting for freedom and liberty, not censorship and re-education camps

britch 5y ago
Winners usually frame their fights as ones for freedom and liberty, and emphasize their enemy's use of censorship and re-education camps.
- jacob2484 5y ago
  Something is either being censored or it's not. Regardless of the issue, I'll side with the side that is not censoring information.
  - jayrice257 5y ago
    That's not the point he's making, any winner can historically write what they want so you don't really get to choose from a history of facts.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    A quick perusal through history will show that conflicts where one side is censorious and the other is not has basically never happened. Usually the winning side sweeps their misdeeds under the rug afterwards. See: US behavior towards communists and left wing groups during the Cold War, or censorship during WW1 and WW2. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" trope comes from the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of someone peacefully distributing fliers protesting the draft in WW1[0]. Funny how that one usually doesn't make it into the history books. 0 - Schenck vs. United States. Thankfully no longer good law.
    - khawkins 5y ago
      Most people are openly taught about the misdeeds of the McCarthy era in schools and in public discussions. This wasn't swept under the rug, most people agree that it happened and wasn't a good thing.
      - notahacker 5y ago
        How much do they learn about the Office of Censorship set up following Pearl Harbour and the role the federal government thought it played in defeating Hitler and Japan? Or the history of battles over "obscenity" laws, often upheld by constitutional courts? Learning "censorship is unAmerican, here's an example of how we tried it once and it was really bad so we ended it" is the definition of sweeping the nuanced reality of speech battles in the US under the carpet in favour of the free speech version of American exceptionalist myths.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Eventual recognition of misdeeds is nice, but irrelevant when the original claim is that there is (or has been) one side that’s anti-censorship. Being pro-censorship and then apologizing later isn’t enough.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tomjen3 5y ago
The people on the right side of history in WWII locked up their own citizens based on their ethnic heritage.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Quite. The UK also had a formal censorship regime; America managed with an informal one voluntarily carried out by media organisations: https://censorshipissues.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/censorship-during-ww2/ https://censorshipissues.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/censorship... (See the varied career of William Joyce: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw from informing against the IRA to British fascism to German propaganda broadcaster; he was eventually hanged for treason.)
- worker767424 5y ago
  FDR's track record on individual rights is rather poor. Seizure of gold, censorship, and internment come to mind.
ipaddr 5y ago
People on the right side of history are the ones who won the war period.

britch 5y ago

Winners usually frame their fights as ones for freedom and liberty, and emphasize their enemy's use of censorship and re-education camps.

jacob2484 5y ago
Something is either being censored or it's not. Regardless of the issue, I'll side with the side that is not censoring information.
- jayrice257 5y ago
  That's not the point he's making, any winner can historically write what they want so you don't really get to choose from a history of facts.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  A quick perusal through history will show that conflicts where one side is censorious and the other is not has basically never happened. Usually the winning side sweeps their misdeeds under the rug afterwards. See: US behavior towards communists and left wing groups during the Cold War, or censorship during WW1 and WW2. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" trope comes from the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of someone peacefully distributing fliers protesting the draft in WW1[0]. Funny how that one usually doesn't make it into the history books. 0 - Schenck vs. United States. Thankfully no longer good law.
  - khawkins 5y ago
    Most people are openly taught about the misdeeds of the McCarthy era in schools and in public discussions. This wasn't swept under the rug, most people agree that it happened and wasn't a good thing.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      How much do they learn about the Office of Censorship set up following Pearl Harbour and the role the federal government thought it played in defeating Hitler and Japan? Or the history of battles over "obscenity" laws, often upheld by constitutional courts? Learning "censorship is unAmerican, here's an example of how we tried it once and it was really bad so we ended it" is the definition of sweeping the nuanced reality of speech battles in the US under the carpet in favour of the free speech version of American exceptionalist myths.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Eventual recognition of misdeeds is nice, but irrelevant when the original claim is that there is (or has been) one side that’s anti-censorship. Being pro-censorship and then apologizing later isn’t enough.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tomjen3 5y ago

The people on the right side of history in WWII locked up their own citizens based on their ethnic heritage.

pjc50 5y ago
Quite. The UK also had a formal censorship regime; America managed with an informal one voluntarily carried out by media organisations: https://censorshipissues.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/censorship-during-ww2/ https://censorshipissues.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/censorship... (See the varied career of William Joyce: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw from informing against the IRA to British fascism to German propaganda broadcaster; he was eventually hanged for treason.)
worker767424 5y ago
FDR's track record on individual rights is rather poor. Seizure of gold, censorship, and internment come to mind.

ipaddr 5y ago

People on the right side of history are the ones who won the war period.