I regard the broadcasting industry in a different light. Their wealth and power was built on a government provided monopoly of a public asset (airwaves) and so they are not just someone's business, they are of vital importance to the well being of the nation.
The nation cannot allow restrictions of speech to exist on systems of mass communications. Our system of elections depends on hearing differing opinions to arrive at our electoral decisions, and an ability to censor one side of the political debate is effectively election tampering in my opinion.
The very purpose for which the founders included "freedom of speech" in the US constitution will be rendered null and void if we allow communications companies to exercise veto power over speech they don't like.
Our very system of governance is being threatened here, and I ask that people be perceptive enough to see it.
” regard the broadcasting industry in a different light. Their wealth and power was built on a government provided monopoly of a public asset (airwaves) and so they are not just someone’s business, they are of vital importance to the well being of the nation. “
Come on, now. I’ve read many of your posts, some I agree with and some I disagree with, but with the end of the broadcast airwaves this argument is invalid.
The freedom of the press is limited to those that own one. I do *NOT* want government, at any level, in any way, for any reason nor within any context to tell any ‘content provider’ what then can or cannot say. That goes for Facebook, Fox, Pinterest, HBO or any other medium other than the publicly owned electromagnetic waves.
Sure, when we had a limited spectrum of radio and TV it made sense that since monopolies were the only way to make them useable that they be treated as a commons of sort, but Google, Facebook and cable channels are under no more obligation, legal or moral, to even acknowledge content they don’t care to than FR is to present the Marxist side of discussions about Venezuela.
I personally oppose pretty much any censorship when done by any entity of the state, and for exactly the reasons you explicate well, but if I create a channel of communications and you (directly or indirectly) pay for it then I can and will darned well ‘cast what I wish and the devil take anyone who thinks I need to present an opposing viewpoint.
Respectfully
I respectfully disagree.
If I built Twitter or the next big social media tool, I have no obligation to provide free speech. If I am a company that will end up wasting millions to defend a contract employee’s stupid speech, I should be free to fire that person.
The Constitution covers government. It has nothing (well, very little to do) with capitalism.
I like Roseanne. I thought her show was funny. But, ABC can hire or fire whomever they want, for whatever reason.
What I would “like to see” is irrelevant, unless I am a shareholder.