11–20 of 30 posts
* The title of this post includes as a tag "(Hint: No, it's not)" which is not part of the title of the linked article.
This is nearly the textbook definition of censorship: sanctions for failing to uphold the "public morals." Somehow that's not the most bizarre claim.
> If I had my druthers we'd take away the licenses of virtually all the commercial TV stations and hand them over to community groups, unions and nonprofits. They couldn't possibly do any worse.
Is this meant to as a joke?
The point was always, and should be, that we as members of a society should respect and uphold the ability of others to spread ideas, particularly those we ourselves disagree with. This should extend to all faculties of your life within all reasonable reason, not just in the context of government censorship.
Trying to censor media that they don't like is exactly the type of activism that they get up to: https://www.fcc.gov/document/chicago-media-action-and-milwau...
But being overtly political _and_ self-promotion (submitter IS the author/CMA) this trips the guidelines line for me.
Nowadays the debate always tends to be drawn by dishonest actors towards if something "technically counts" as censorship or not. The idea of free speech is no longer upheld as something of an important idea, but rather something which should be circumvented by as much legal mumbo jumbo as possible. The point was always, and should be, that we as members of a society should respect and uphold the ability of others to…
Ever since the (IMO ludicrous) XKCD comic[0], too many have gotten the wires crossed and think free speech is exclusively legalistic rather than the bedrock of an open society.
Some really orwellian stuff here. What amazes me is that people really believe this bullshit and don't even show a hint of shame.
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!
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.
Some really orwellian stuff here. What amazes me is that people really believe this bullshit and don't even show a hint of shame.
I truly do not understand how people have forgotten that in a democracy, any powers you give yourself - any lines you cross or precedences you break - are tools that your political enemies will use against you when they return to power, and in a democracy they will always return to power eventually. Both sides are guilty of the descent into political total war and but as citizens we need to reject this kind of behavi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
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 equa…
"privilege" (in the legal sense, not the social justice sense) is compatible with "equal protection" and "due process". "Privilege" doest mean "freely revocable gift".