3 ms·
> Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Fortunately Neil Young lacks the power to enforce his view, but make no doubt, his
by tomp 5y ago
> Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force".
Fortunately Neil Young lacks the power to enforce his view, but make no doubt, his view is censorship.
- sanderjd 5y agoNeil Young can't censor media he doesn't control. Spotify could choose to censor Rogan, either in response to what Neil Young said (which note: he is also free to speak) or just on their own. And that's fine, it's their choice who to associate with and who not to. Note that they definitely already do censor in this way by choosing what podcasts to host and advertise on their product.
- xoa 5y agoAs sibling comment says, without force behind it it's not in fact censorship. It's free speech. He doesn't want to support certain speech and is taking action accordingly, and he doesn't want others to either and is saying so and why. Others may choose to agree or not and take action accordingly. He can then react to that. And on and on throughout society. That entire dynamic is the essence of free speech, not censorship.
- denton-scratch 5y agoA view can't be censorship. Censorship is the compulsory suppression of speech, and arguably the compulsion has to be done by a government (if it's not done by a government, then it's not compulsory). Censorship is an act, not an opinion.
- tomp 5y agoNo, censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power). All else is a red herring. As the saying goes, ”In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech. But in the US, you have freedom after* speech.”
- denton-scratch 5y ago> censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them? It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
- tomp 5y agoA failed attempt at censorship/murder doesn't make something not censorship/murder. Intent matters. Fortunately, Neil Young failed.
- denton-scratch 5y agoYou're wrong; intent to murder isn't murder, unless you actually murder someone. Intent to murder isn't even an offence. Same with censorship.