4 ms·

TBH, I think that is a bit of a trite diversion/straw man. I don't think anyone is arguing this is an act by the government. However, censorship is not always s

TBH, I think that is a bit of a trite diversion/straw man. I don't think anyone is arguing this is an act by the government. However, censorship is not always something government does [1]. This certainly _is_ an act of corporate political censorship. And if they can easily get away with censoring people who "get to whine about it on C-SPAN", it is certain that you and I and the rest of the plebeians have absolutely no recourse. That is not OK. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

eesmith 5y ago
When I see the term "corporate political censorship" come up, I want to know why that action isn't constitutionally protected. More specifically, most of the examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship seem to be ones where a company exercised its First Amendment right of free association. One of the examples is when the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by country radio stations. Surely stations have a First Amendment right to decide to not broadcast songs from a given group, especially when most of the the owners, staff, advertisers, and listeners don't want to hear them. Another example is when Sinclair Broadcast Group decided to not broadcast Nightline's list of the US soldiers who had died in Iraq. Surely that too was an exercise of Sinclair's right of free association, this time based on their belief that Nightline stepped too far from news into politicizing. I don't even see how Amazon's ban on preorders of Captain America: The Winter Soldier in disc form can be called 'censorship' - it looks like normal predatory business practices which Disney should be familiar with. (Disney's own self-censorship of Song of the South would be another example of the oddity of extending the concept of "censorship" outside of the political realm.) To be certain, the examples where a company acted due to concerns about political consequences are censorship. But that's the "normal" government censorship, simply mediated through private organizations. I completely agree that free association is NOT an absolute right for companies! There is a tension with the rights of others, as with US civil rights laws that prohibit companies that do business with the public from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, etc. But, what's the tension here? If Twitter doesn't want to be associated with Greene, well, there's a long history of publishing companies, broadcast stations, newspapers, and more, who have decided to not be associated with someone. After all, that's the essence of free association. > absolutely no recourse Exaggeration like that seems a bit of a trite diversion/straw man. Very few of us plebians have "absolutely no recourse". You can hold a sign and protest on the street corner, or print out fliers and pass them out, or go door-to-door. Those aren't as effective as being Robert Murdoch, but we can't all be media moguls. What would be OK to you, and also not be unconstitutional? (Or, what amendment would you want?) Followup question: If I don't agree to Twitter's Terms of Service, and no other service can provide any where to the same recourse as Twitter, can those terms I disagree to be nullified?

eesmith 5y ago

When I see the term "corporate political censorship" come up, I want to know why that action isn't constitutionally protected. More specifically, most of the examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship seem to be ones where a company exercised its First Amendment right of free association. One of the examples is when the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by country radio stations. Surely stations have a First Amendment right to decide to not broadcast songs from a given group, especially when most of the the owners, staff, advertisers, and listeners don't want to hear them. Another example is when Sinclair Broadcast Group decided to not broadcast Nightline's list of the US soldiers who had died in Iraq. Surely that too was an exercise of Sinclair's right of free association, this time based on their belief that Nightline stepped too far from news into politicizing. I don't even see how Amazon's ban on preorders of Captain America: The Winter Soldier in disc form can be called 'censorship' - it looks like normal predatory business practices which Disney should be familiar with. (Disney's own self-censorship of Song of the South would be another example of the oddity of extending the concept of "censorship" outside of the political realm.) To be certain, the examples where a company acted due to concerns about political consequences are censorship. But that's the "normal" government censorship, simply mediated through private organizations. I completely agree that free association is NOT an absolute right for companies! There is a tension with the rights of others, as with US civil rights laws that prohibit companies that do business with the public from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, etc. But, what's the tension here? If Twitter doesn't want to be associated with Greene, well, there's a long history of publishing companies, broadcast stations, newspapers, and more, who have decided to not be associated with someone. After all, that's the essence of free association. > absolutely no recourse Exaggeration like that seems a bit of a trite diversion/straw man. Very few of us plebians have "absolutely no recourse". You can hold a sign and protest on the street corner, or print out fliers and pass them out, or go door-to-door. Those aren't as effective as being Robert Murdoch, but we can't all be media moguls. What would be OK to you, and also not be unconstitutional? (Or, what amendment would you want?) Followup question: If I don't agree to Twitter's Terms of Service, and no other service can provide any where to the same recourse as Twitter, can those terms I disagree to be nullified?