4 ms·

It's all OK if you frame it as a "privelage" the government is gracious enough to bestow.. then of course it's not censorship!

gjsman-1000 3y ago
This also happened, I’m forgetting the court case, where the government revoked a driver’s license for reasons other than the driving. They argued, well, it’s a “privilege.” The court, thankfully, shredded them and said that driving is basically a right that anyone may have access to if they meet the same standards set for public safety. So, at least from that court’s view, it’s a “privilege” that people have an equal right to try to obtain and hold. Or something to that effect.
- gowld 3y ago
  Right "privilege" (in the legal sense, not the social justice sense) is compatible with "equal protection" and "due process". "Privilege" doest mean "freely revocable gift".
dundarious 3y ago
There's a substantive case to be made here, but you're not even close to making it. It's extremely well-known that the FCC regulates and prohibits, for example, "indecent and profane" content, such as nudity and swearing, which are both obviously first amendment protected. The FCC has been regulating speech like this for nearly 100 years. I think there are examples of FCC censorship (regulating speech that they do not have the right to regulate, or doing so with obvious political bias), maybe even the one under discussion, but it is incredibly lazy to make these simple sarcastic comments that betray a lack of basic understanding or argumentation. You can make the case for getting rid of all the FCC's speech restrictions if you want, or for resolving what you might consider political enforcement action that is effectively political censorship. But sarcasm about how other people must be mad to tolerate something that has been going on for about 90 years, is pathetic.
- ryanschaefer 3y ago
  The issue I have with this article is it’s trying to change the definition of censorship. Not allowing profanity is censorship even if most of the public is okay with this. One can argue that there is a good reason for censorship but you have to call it what it is rather than trying to redefine the act itself.
  - dundarious 3y ago
    The broad public support is why your definition of censorship and the article's are incompatible, why it behooves you to explain the difference, and why it's lazy to invoke Orwell and complain about definitions without explanation. I agree the FCC is all about censorship, but word games and snark is such a lazy and ineffective way to debate.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

This also happened, I’m forgetting the court case, where the government revoked a driver’s license for reasons other than the driving. They argued, well, it’s a “privilege.” The court, thankfully, shredded them and said that driving is basically a right that anyone may have access to if they meet the same standards set for public safety. So, at least from that court’s view, it’s a “privilege” that people have an equal right to try to obtain and hold. Or something to that effect.

gowld 3y ago
Right "privilege" (in the legal sense, not the social justice sense) is compatible with "equal protection" and "due process". "Privilege" doest mean "freely revocable gift".

dundarious 3y ago

There's a substantive case to be made here, but you're not even close to making it. It's extremely well-known that the FCC regulates and prohibits, for example, "indecent and profane" content, such as nudity and swearing, which are both obviously first amendment protected. The FCC has been regulating speech like this for nearly 100 years. I think there are examples of FCC censorship (regulating speech that they do not have the right to regulate, or doing so with obvious political bias), maybe even the one under discussion, but it is incredibly lazy to make these simple sarcastic comments that betray a lack of basic understanding or argumentation. You can make the case for getting rid of all the FCC's speech restrictions if you want, or for resolving what you might consider political enforcement action that is effectively political censorship. But sarcasm about how other people must be mad to tolerate something that has been going on for about 90 years, is pathetic.

ryanschaefer 3y ago
The issue I have with this article is it’s trying to change the definition of censorship. Not allowing profanity is censorship even if most of the public is okay with this. One can argue that there is a good reason for censorship but you have to call it what it is rather than trying to redefine the act itself.
- dundarious 3y ago
  The broad public support is why your definition of censorship and the article's are incompatible, why it behooves you to explain the difference, and why it's lazy to invoke Orwell and complain about definitions without explanation. I agree the FCC is all about censorship, but word games and snark is such a lazy and ineffective way to debate.