Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such requirement!
[a potential threat of] shareholders bringing suits makes to some extent up for such a requirement.
Not really. Such lawsuits aren't really a thing.
Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
31–40 of 137 posts
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#32simillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk parliament https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-p...
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
[deleted]
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
[a potential threat of] shareholders bringing suits makes to some extent up for such a requirement.
Not really. Such lawsuits aren't really a thing.
Wall Street Journal says there were a record number of Shareholder lawsuits in 2017 for reasons including disappointing earnings. Nearly 10% of traded companies faced one that year. It kind of seems like “a thing.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-lawsuits-targeting-stock-dr...
Edit: 2017, not this year
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not unreasonable for a sovereign country to exercise control over legal media in its territory. It might not be just, or fair, for residents of that country, but it is reasonable.
A government exercising control over the media in its country is a very clear-cut violation of the value of free-speech. The moral question is whether American companies should help foreign governments shut down free-speech. Just like google in China. And the consensus seems to be "No."
Free speech doesn't make sense if you aren't a democracy. Public speech the government officially disagrees with is incitement of rebellion. In a democracy, there isn't this existential threat to the country. Given that you are a dictatorship, regulating speech to avoid insurrection is morally right.
> And the consensus seems to be "No."
Consensus is completely irrelevant when answering a moral question, unless it instrumentally affects the moral calculus.
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#35Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#36simillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk parliament https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-p...
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
Is the law really from 1743? I mean, it can make sense, but I would find it interesting if the law was really that old
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#37simillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk parliament https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-p...
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
>This was more of a copyright claim than censorship.
Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
[a potential threat of] shareholders bringing suits makes to some extent up for such a requirement.
Not really. Such lawsuits aren't really a thing.
Kinda odd that so many companies pay money for fairness opinions (M&A, capital raising, major transactions) that specifically identify fairness from solely a "Financial" point of view to shareholders. I always thought it was to avoid lawsuits.
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#39First time I've heard of the show. I watched about 20 minutes ... pretty good. The style reminds me of Samantha B ... political commentary sprinkled with humor.
> political commentary sprinkled with humor.
I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
A government exercising control over the media in its country is a very clear-cut violation of the value of free-speech. The moral question is whether American companies should help foreign governments shut down free-speech. Just like google in China. And the consensus seems to be "No."
Free speech doesn't make sense if you aren't a democracy. Public speech the government officially disagrees with is incitement of rebellion. In a democracy, there isn't this existential threat to the country. Given that you are a dictatorship, regulating speech to avoid insurrection is morally right. > And the consensus seems to be "No." Consensus is completely irrelevant when answering a moral question, unless it in…
Hey, let's not overstep and say that dictators are "morally right" to stop free speech. Legally right, perhaps, but come now, Western democracies would laugh at saying decorators keeping peace is "moral". In fact, they'd argue the opposite. That dictators should morally step down and cede power to the people.