3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoI 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.