4 ms·

It's not less protected. RT has the same protection from the state and the judicial system as Nazi speech does. RTs problem isn't that their speech isn't protec

by detaro 5y ago

It's not less protected. RT has the same protection from the state and the judicial system as Nazi speech does. RTs problem isn't that their speech isn't protected, it's that others refuse to help them distribute it - which is generally their legal right (and if they broke contracts saying otherwise in the process, RT is free to sue them).

the_af 5y ago
I find that line of reasoning very unconvincing. If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it. It's still not there -- you can still access RT's website and there are alternatives to YouTube... for now. How long till you cannot access them either. It boggles the mind. So Russia blocks Facebook and Twitter, and we rightly repudiate it. Though I guess when we make RT and affiliates inaccessible it's ok?
- detaro 5y ago
  I believe the difference between the author not having some of his distribution channels anymore and being able to complain about it vs the author being in jail (or worse) is quite relevant. As is the difference of being able to take his content and give it to people in other ways or not. And if you talk "protected", it's pretty clearly a legal argument, and that works as outlined (in the US). "Should Google/... have banned them" is a good and interesting question, but not quite the same.
  - the_af 5y ago
    Yes, you are right. It's not legally banned, it's just being gradually made inaccessible to Western audiences. Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, plurality of voices, and other liberal ideas?
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, plurality of voices, and other liberal ideas? Nothing happened to it. You're perfectly within your rights to go stand in a public marketplace and yell until you're blue in the face about whatever you please. "Free speech" does not and has never meant that any company or individual of your choosing is compelled to amplify what you have to say.
      - the_af 5y ago
        I don't think the analogy fits, since these are voices and outlets that are being effectively made inaccessible to Western audiences. There's the purist view of free speech and then there's the practical one ("is it free speech if none can hear it"?). I'm obviously talking about the most important one: the latter.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it. Sure you can. Any loon can run a website or do things the old fashioned way (standing on a soapbox in a public square). You're perfectly entitled to seek the loons out; what you aren't entitled to are private subsidies that lower the otherwise basic level of effort required on your part.
  - the_af 5y ago
    I'm not sure you will always be able to, if current trends continue. Deplatforming from everywhere that matters is effectively banning. We worry when Russia and China do it, and we should also worry when the US and Europe do it too. PS: we are talking about news coverage and outlets, not "loons". Please don't add unwanted "color" to this debate.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      You'll note that in countries like Russia and China, you can end up in prison for contradicting the state or publishing information that doesn't comport with its narrative. I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which a nastygram from Facebook telling you that you've been banned can compare to the material threats that such countries hold over the heads of their citizens. Our worry (which often feels performative) is largely rooted in that. If you want to fight against "current trends," then you need to stop delivering undue power to private corporations and expecting the government to haphazardly legislate you out of your problems (the basis for that legislation is left as a continued exercise, given that there is absolutely no 1A basis for compelling companies to distribute speech.)
      - the_af 5y ago
        > You'll note that in countries like Russia and China, you can end up in prison for contradicting the state or publishing information that doesn't comport with its narrative. Yes, in the West we're not quite there yet. We are just simply removing access to dissenting voices. Only for those we deem "enemies", of course. For now. > you need to stop delivering undue power to private corporations and expecting the government to haphazardly legislate you out of your problems I'm not sure where this non sequitur comes from, but regardless: which government? From which country do you think I'm from?

by detaro 5y ago

the_af 5y ago

I find that line of reasoning very unconvincing. If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it. It's still not there -- you can still access RT's website and there are alternatives to YouTube... for now. How long till you cannot access them either. It boggles the mind. So Russia blocks Facebook and Twitter, and we rightly repudiate it. Though I guess when we make RT and affiliates inaccessible it's ok?

detaro 5y ago
I believe the difference between the author not having some of his distribution channels anymore and being able to complain about it vs the author being in jail (or worse) is quite relevant. As is the difference of being able to take his content and give it to people in other ways or not. And if you talk "protected", it's pretty clearly a legal argument, and that works as outlined (in the US). "Should Google/... have banned them" is a good and interesting question, but not quite the same.
- the_af 5y ago
  Yes, you are right. It's not legally banned, it's just being gradually made inaccessible to Western audiences. Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, plurality of voices, and other liberal ideas?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, plurality of voices, and other liberal ideas? Nothing happened to it. You're perfectly within your rights to go stand in a public marketplace and yell until you're blue in the face about whatever you please. "Free speech" does not and has never meant that any company or individual of your choosing is compelled to amplify what you have to say.
    - the_af 5y ago
      I don't think the analogy fits, since these are voices and outlets that are being effectively made inaccessible to Western audiences. There's the purist view of free speech and then there's the practical one ("is it free speech if none can hear it"?). I'm obviously talking about the most important one: the latter.
woodruffw 5y ago
> If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it. Sure you can. Any loon can run a website or do things the old fashioned way (standing on a soapbox in a public square). You're perfectly entitled to seek the loons out; what you aren't entitled to are private subsidies that lower the otherwise basic level of effort required on your part.
- the_af 5y ago
  I'm not sure you will always be able to, if current trends continue. Deplatforming from everywhere that matters is effectively banning. We worry when Russia and China do it, and we should also worry when the US and Europe do it too. PS: we are talking about news coverage and outlets, not "loons". Please don't add unwanted "color" to this debate.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    You'll note that in countries like Russia and China, you can end up in prison for contradicting the state or publishing information that doesn't comport with its narrative. I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which a nastygram from Facebook telling you that you've been banned can compare to the material threats that such countries hold over the heads of their citizens. Our worry (which often feels performative) is largely rooted in that. If you want to fight against "current trends," then you need to stop delivering undue power to private corporations and expecting the government to haphazardly legislate you out of your problems (the basis for that legislation is left as a continued exercise, given that there is absolutely no 1A basis for compelling companies to distribute speech.)
    - the_af 5y ago
      > You'll note that in countries like Russia and China, you can end up in prison for contradicting the state or publishing information that doesn't comport with its narrative. Yes, in the West we're not quite there yet. We are just simply removing access to dissenting voices. Only for those we deem "enemies", of course. For now. > you need to stop delivering undue power to private corporations and expecting the government to haphazardly legislate you out of your problems I'm not sure where this non sequitur comes from, but regardless: which government? From which country do you think I'm from?