Posted on 01/11/2024 7:39:06 AM PST by davikkm
There are no “degrees of free speech.”
It either exists or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, you are always on the path to printing nothing but government propaganda.
If you ban anything at all, you open yourself up to banning everything.
If you refuse to ban anything, then you have a strong position.
But once you’ve decided something was “too much,” then you are offering an implicit endorsement of everything you don’t ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenwatchreport.com ...
There goes another one
Substack is a paid platform, where you subscribe to the content creator.
Are they censoring the paid content, or just the free content?
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
history of free speech. Good to know the backround
From the article:
None of the nixed newsletters have paid subscribers and, in total, account for about 100 active readers, according to the company.
Read later.
Free speech means not being censored by government.
Private entities have the right to censor because the conveyance method is theirs. They may choose for it to be open, or not.
Just like FR. The ownership/moderators frequently remove posts and threads for a variety of reasons. It is their right. WE are guests here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/freedom-of-speech-historical-background
Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”
1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.”
2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.
4 The final language was agreed upon in conference.
Is our free speech being limited by govt?
This makes a good point - once you censor some content you are implicitly endorsing allowed content. That means that you are on the road to destruction.
If government funding is involved then private companies banning free speech are de facto agents of the government.
It is a camel’s nose under the tent problem.
They never want to stop once they get started....
Wrong.
The First Amendment protects you from being censored by government.
But free speech and censorship are broader concepts than the First Amendment.
Private entities can censor. And a few oligarchs who own most of media can effectively suppress free speech. And that's not good.
I know libertarians love to repeat the mantra "Only government can censor." But just because libertarian have been saying that for decades, doesn't make it so.
According to most western governments anyone who opposes the ruling elite is a “Nazi”.
If they can ban them they can ban you.
The libertarian concept is antiquated in an age where government funds almost everything directly or indirectly.
The libertarian concept is antiquated in an age where government funds almost everything directly or indirectly.
Private entities have the right to censor because the conveyance method is theirs. They may choose for it to be open, or not.
—
True...that is until the government uses some means to force the private entities to censor (see Twitter).
That’s right, and it’s not just funding. The government also has other ways of putting their foot on the scale. They can threaten, or incentivize private media by selective enforcement of regulations.
There is also a revolving door between government and media - whereby government and media collude, exchanging leaks, favorable coverage and even career opportunities in both sectors..
In the old days leftists liked to use the words “chilling effect” when government actions indirectly harmed freedom of speech.
The concept was valid—even the fear of lawfare or regulation is enough to silence or muffle most speakers.
Lawfare against speakers is de facto government action if it is allowed in the courts.
The Alex Jones and other cases set a precedent where anyone can claim they were harmed by another’s speech—even where no financial damage can be proved.
Continuing..one controversial (often non political) podcast I listen to has to used code-words all the time and openly say “we can’t say this directly or we will be banned”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.