In an increasingly online world, the vast majority of human conversation is taking place on websites hosted by corporations that have strict censorship policies. Most of these polices are set in place to "protect" their advertising interests, despite the fact that speech is constitutionally protected including pictures, human sexuality and "controversial" topics in a religion dominated society.
How does humanity fight this?
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/23/137348338 … el-so-good
(NOT spam but an NPR piece about censorship)
who wants to fight it?
If I own a restaurant, and I don't want people yelling "F**K YOU N*GG**" in my restaurant, then I make it a rule not to yell hate speech in my restaurant.
If you want to yell hate speech, then you don't come to my restaurant.
It's voluntary, and thus not a breech of "free speech"
Exactly, this concept isn't very hard to understand, speech is not protected on another individual's property, only on government property (whether a government can legitimately own property is another question entirely.
If you own property (when I speak of property I do not just mean land), you get to make the rules, and telling someone they can't say something does not infringe on that person's rights. In fact if the government were to force you to allow him to say whatever he wanted it would be your property rights that were violated.
I don't see how private companies can be accused of censorship. Free speech is protected only from government oppression or discrimination based on a protected status (gender, religion etc).
Private websites can set their own rules just like a restaurant or home livingroom can.
I know they do. That's the point. Censorship doesn't just come from government.
It isn't censorship, which is the point Psycheskinner was making. It is their rules and the member must obey the rules assigned.
Every person must sign/agree to a terms of service. Those who don't bother to read them, then it is their own fault and have no right to scream "censorship".
Censorship isn't a bad thing -- if you don't want to use my website/restaurant/billboard/whatever, then don't. If I own the thing, I get to decide the rules to play by. It is completely VOLUNTARY.
However, restricting free speech IS a bad thing. If the government makes it illegal for anyone anywhere to say something, then that's tyranny because IT'S NOT VOLUNTARY.
Name an ISP without censorship rules, the terms of service is backed by government power
So is my right to throw out foul mouthed patrons from my cafe.
The fact private rights are backed by law, doesn't make them government censorship.
By what argument do you think people should not be able to establish conduct requirements in their private clubs?
If you want different rules, you can start your own. Use an off shore server like those pirate sites so even local law doesn't apply.
If you started a website to make some money and the site promptly filled up with spammers and pornography I dare say you would take steps to stop both.
Of course privately owned web sites censor what you may post on their site. It is the only way they can keep the site they designed and want. If you don't like it make your own site. As long as you do not post illegal (stolen, for instance) material you can post what you want to.
Of course it's backed up by government power - name a single industry in the US that IS NOT backed up by government power!!
All contracts are enforced by the government because they claim a MONOPOLY on interpreting contracts and enforcing them.
Like it or not (I don't), law enforcement is a monopoly.
I'm 1000% on board with the implications of what your saying (I'm sure, looking at your uniform, you don't actually think this) -- the government monopoly on interpreting contracts and enforcing laws NEEDS to be abolished.
Let's get some competition in the courts and police.
How to fight it? Take your own laptop with a wireless connection to work and use it instead of stealing time and memory from the corporation. It will keep your porno off their mainframe as well.
Ditto for phone - take your cellphone to work and use it.
There are also online forums that allow absolutely anything. I tend to avoid them....
I'm thinking about the future of a humanity where there is a sizable online public presence. ISPs have a long list of rules that go beyond what the laws require. Censorship becomes a bad thing if your only choices are all in bed with mandatory limiting of expression. Unrestricted access to the global internet is a human right, and a portal with millions of users is not the same as a physical restaurant, it's more like a "private" city, an Ayn Rand libertarian utopia.
I know most of you seem perfectly comfortable with American censorship and may liken what I'm saying to single issues or a desire to engage in "immoral" activities, but that is sort of my point as well. The corporations are deciding our morals and they are decidedly not the same on a global scale.
Hey Stephen, Internet service isn't a right. It's a product offered by a business. If you don't like the way the business does business, then find some other place to do business. If you cannot, then go without.
Or, just buy a server. Do for yourself what you want others to do for you... see how it turns out.
Owning a server with an IP address and DNS registry given out by ICAAN is not public access to the internet. I suppose then there needs to be legal movements to make internet access a right.
I don't think you guys understand that I'm not looking at this subject from an individual viewpoint.
Everybody is already going without a connection moving towards Orwellian ways. The writing is on the walls, even google knows this. Most government around the world are begginign to make moves towards stronger censorship and the corporations are just as guilty. (RIAA, MPAA, Cisco, Nokia, etc)
Not to mention Google, Microsoft and Yahoo actions in countries like China
Now you're beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist and this is where I part ways.
I disagree with every point made by Stephen so far except this, though I think I differ slightly. I hate google because google collects vast amounts of information for the NSA, google is acting as spy for the US government on its own citizens. Now of course google has no real choice, but it is still a terrible state of the world when government and big business are in bed together, in fact, that is what we call fascism (of course we have had that since FDR so its certainly not new). In this way it is certainly becoming a little Orwellian, but I would say the warfare state, violation of civil liberties and doublethink are a bit more overtly Orwellian than any concern over "censorship" on the internet (it is important to point out that it isn't the google's of the world to fear about censorship, but the pressure governments put on google to make them censor the people).
One point _ Google and Microsoft are identified worldwide as the biggest online collectors of personal information.
Second point _ I think the OP is concerned about censorship closing in with government censorship and news corporations censoring what people are told - and also with censorship in the workplace - it is slowly closing down basic freedoms and people are not even aware of it.
by Michael Collins4 years ago
Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have the...
by Jeff Berndt4 years ago
So we have freedom of speech in the US, but we also have a crime called "incitement to riot."If you want to commit that crime, what you need to do is get up in front of a group of people, and say some words....
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
Grassroots Gag OrderFellow Patriots,There is a movement underway right now to clamp down on our free-speech rights in way we previously couldn't imagine.I'm not kidding, this piece of legislation will have you spitting...
by Dave Mathews5 years ago
Three weeks ago I was prohibited from giving answers in the "Answer" Section, because I offended some bleeding heart, with something I said in an answer. I did not swear or call names, they just didn't like...
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
In yet another echoing of the evil genius and master manipulator, Dick Cheney, Barrack Obama uses a drone aircraft to execute an American citizen, luckily it was on foreign soil, this time. ...
by EncephaloiDead3 years ago
We know that freedom of speech often allows hate speech and we know that more reasonable and rational speech combats hate speech. Should freedom of religion provide protection for religious hate speech in the same way?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.