• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Megathread Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture Discussion

IME 'state owned' is state owned, or government run. Public means it is owned by stock holders, answerable to those shareholders, and subject to one set of laws. Private has always meant an individual, or family, owned business. Private doesn't have to publish financial records, whereas Public does.

Yes, the reporting requirements for public corporations inherently limit the amount of privacy they are entitled to legally.

More pointedly, the "is it right to..." line of reasoning is implying that these corporations are not expected to respect the constitutional rights of citizens over their fiduciary obligations to shareholders.

If these publicly-traded tech companies were doing business privately maybe that would be OK... but they chose to create public forums and profit from our social interaction. They deliberately inserted themselves into the public discourse and as such should not have the right to choose who to censor.
 
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, which at least sets out some sort of guidelines.

What Type of Speech Is Not Protected by the First Amendment?​

While many Americans know that they have a right to free speech, the lay opinion often views the degree of protection afforded by the United State Constitution as much broader than it is in reality. The First Amendment does not protect all types of speech.

First Amendment Guarantees​

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” While it states “Congress,” the protections are also against state government and local public officials from making any law that abridges a person’s freedom of speech. However, simply because the government cannot make a law of this nature does not mean that individuals are free to say anything that they want to. For example, employers may prohibit certain types of speech that would not violate a person’s First Amendment rights if the employer was not a public employer.

Purpose of the First Amendment​

The First Amendment was established to help promote the free exchange of ideas and to provide a form of redress to citizens against their government. Additionally, the First Amendment seeks to protect unpopular forms of speech. However, certain forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment.

Content Regulations​

Some laws may prevent the expression of certain ideas and messages. While presumptively impermissible, there are limited exceptions to when the government can prohibit certain forms of speech. Some examples are described below.

Fighting Words​

Government may prohibit the use of “fighting words,” which is speech that is used to inflame another and that will likely incite physical retaliation. Likewise, language that is meant to incite the masses toward lawless action is not protected. This can include speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. The test for fighting words is whether an average citizen would view the language as being inherently likely to provoke a violent response

Obscenity​

Most forms of obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. However, there is a high threshold that must be met in order for obscenity not to be protected, which includes showing that the language appeals to the prurient interest in sex, that it depicts something that is considered patently offensive based on contemporary community standards and that it lacks serious literary, scientific or artistic value.

Child Pornography​

Child pornography is an exception to the First Amendment’s right to free speech and to having to meet the high threshold test for other obscene works. Speech is not protected if it depicts a minor performing sexual acts or showing their private parts.

Libel and Slander​

The First Amendment does not protect individuals from facing civil penalties if they defame another person through written or verbal communication.

Crimes Involving Speech​

The First Amendment also does not provide protection for forms of speech that are used to commit a crime, such as perjury, extortion or harassment.

Threats​

Speech is not usually protected when it constitutes a threat toward another that places the target of such speech of bodily harm or death. There are certain exceptions, such as when a reasonable person would understand the language not to be a credible threat. Additionally, threats of mere social ostracism or boycotts are protected by the constitution.

Violation of Copyright Rules​

Intellectual property is protected, including copyrights and trademarks. The Supreme Court has held that copyright laws can withstand a First Amendment challenge based on the freedom of speech.

Conduct Regulations​

The government is permitted to make laws regarding the conduct related to speech, such as by stating when speech may be provided, where it may be provided and how it can be communicated. Courts generally uphold these types of regulations as long as they are considered content-neutral and not directed only at prohibiting the expression of certain ideas. For example, the government may prohibit demonstrations at certain locations, may limit the size of a poster used for speech and may limit the amount of sound that can be heard at specific times.

Commercial Speech​

While commercial speech is protected, it is generally viewed as having “diminished protection.” Commercial speech may be faced with many more regulations than speech from a private citizen if a substantial government interest is advanced and the government’s restriction is no more extensive than necessary. This type of protection serves the interest of protecting the public from false information while still recognizing the need for free communication between businesses and potential customers.
 
More pointedly, the "is it right to..." line of reasoning is implying that these corporations are not expected to respect the constitutional rights of citizens over their fiduciary obligations to shareholders.

Uhh, well, they're not. Your federal constitutional rights are entirely limited to federal and state government. Originally it wasn't even in effect against the state government until the 14th amendment.
 
line of reasoning is implying that these corporations are not expected to respect the constitutional rights of citizens

censoring - or outright banning - a user from facebook (or whatever) has nothing to do with a citizen's constitutional rights.

the first amendment says the government can't limit your speech - "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". it says nothing about a corporation choosing to not allow you to use their service/bandwidth/money to spout your opinion.

alasdair
 
Doesn't the argument actually boil down to whether facegoogletwit are acting as common carriers or publishers private public whatever is not important.

One the one hand they argue they are common carriers like the telcos who are NOT responsible for what people say then they censor or otherwise restrict what people say using their service which means they are acting as publishers and should be liable for everything they do publish, and that liability should extend into court actions for libel slander or whatever. They are entitled to choose whichever position but what they cannot do is wear different hats in different situations in order to evade responsibility and regulation.

facegoogletwit are not public spaces, they are allowed to set the rules which people agree to when they use the platform. They are plantations or walled gardens and on the plantation what massa says is law.

The dark aspect of all of this is the intertwining of state and corporate power, Benito Mussoilini said that the definition facism was the marriage of the state and corporations. The USA is fascist by this definition, However, the USA has practically no trains and they don't run on time. A mediocre failing facist state.
 
Doesn't the argument actually boil down to whether facegoogletwit are acting as common carriers or publishers

 

That is interesting take, but then then that interpretion of US law says that googlefacetwit are responsible if the speech itself is illegal or tortious (giving rise to tort claim for damages or harm) itself and then googlefacetwit default defence is to claim to be simply carriers. It is easy to argue that googlefacetwit publish or republish material that is illegal and much material that is tortious what is not really acceptable is then googlefacetwit hiding behind the carrier republish defense.
The whole thing is smoke and mirrors, TBH I don't really care what googlefacetwit or thier users do in their plantation space but the smug rightousness of the bigtech is classic hypocrisy.
 
the first amendment says the government can't limit your speech - "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". it says nothing about a corporation choosing to not allow you to use their service/bandwidth/money to spout your opinion.

The operative word here is choosing. I didn't choose to open a Google and Facebook account, I was required to do so to communicate with people for work.

If these companies had been doing business privately then your argument would be acceptable, but they have forced their way into our lives and should be regulated like any other utility we need to subscribe to.
 
.
I didn't choose to open a Google and Facebook account, I was required to do so to communicate with people for work.

then your company made the choice. so your argument is with your company.

it's just amusing/slightly baffling/whatever to me that right-leaners (for want of a better umbrella term) are all about small government, the government should not be in the business of telling people and companies what to do, the freer the market the freer the people, etc.

right up until they get bent out of shape by a tweet or a facebook post then they're all about regulation...

alasdair
 
.


then your company made the choice. so your argument is with your company.

it's just amusing/slightly baffling/whatever to me that right-leaners (for want of a better umbrella term) are all about small government, the government should not be in the business of telling people and companies what to do, the freer the market the freer the people, etc.

right up until they get bent out of shape by a tweet or a facebook post then they're all about regulation...

alasdair

Yep.

When you get down to it, most people's opinions aren't rational or based as a logical extension of a fundamental philosophical premise. It's just whatever is good for them at the time and in line with their personality.
 
censoring - or outright banning - a user from facebook (or whatever) has nothing to do with a citizen's constitutional rights.

the first amendment says the government can't limit your speech - "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". it says nothing about a corporation choosing to not allow you to use their service/bandwidth/money to spout your opinion.

alasdair
Naw, just the echoed opinions of their "morally superior" swarm of back patters, right?
On a mission from patron saint Karl to save us from our uncultured selves! 🙄
 
Last edited:
.


then your company made the choice. so your argument is with your company.
Not just a company, many companies. I wouldn't disagree that the public deserves some culpability for falling into this trap, but what am I supposed to do if people think it’s just too much of a hassle to communicate with me on a federated protocol like e-mail? I don’t have a lot of bargaining power if I need their attention and/or business.

The whole reason people have constitutional rights is because there's no alternative to dealing with the government. Google, Facebook, et al. have spent years consolidating their power to ensure that there are no alternatives left, including BUYING the alternatives for billions. This point makes itself.

it's just amusing/slightly baffling/whatever to me that right-leaners (for want of a better umbrella term) are all about small government, the government should not be in the business of telling people and companies what to do, the freer the market the freer the people, etc.

right up until they get bent out of shape by a tweet or a facebook post then they're all about regulation...

alasdair

I’ve been posting harsh criticisms of social media corporations here for years, never with a partisan bias. I’ve also taken an anti-censorship stance on other topics, so it’s a stretch to say I’m having a knee-jerk reaction to some pundits being canceled.

And, by the same token, I might also find it baffling that someone who leans left is abandoning the traditional pro-regulation stance of the left to defend the rights of a corporation...?
 
THE VERGE said:
So far, the only bill to pass out of committee is the EARN IT Act, which was amended into a milder version before advancing.

WHAT CHANGES ARE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS PROPOSING?
Democrats have largely been concerned with getting platforms to remove more content because of the harms associated with hate speech, terrorism, and harassment. To facilitate this, they’ve helped introduce several bipartisan proposals to erode Section 230.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) was a sponsor of the EARN IT Act and is a frequent critic of Section 230’s protections. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) has proposed an alternative called the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, which focuses on requiring websites to transparently report how they moderate content.

WHAT CHANGES ARE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS PROPOSING?
The most serious Republican effort to rewrite Section 230 has come not from Congress, but from the Department of Justice. In June 2020, Attorney General William Barr released a series of recommendations for how Section 230 might be reformed, playing off a string of workshops earlier in the year. The recommendations include new restrictions on cyberstalking and terrorism, which would likely result in more proactive moderation efforts, along with measures intended to punish arbitrary or discriminatory moderation. Barr’s proposal would only grant immunity for moderation decisions that are “done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation” — a far narrower scope than the current law.


I get cracking down on child sex trafficking and porn, that's just obvious but its a sad day indeed when there has to be legislation to fall back on to enforce platforms to consider their user base.

Both sides have similar ideas, seem reasonable yet havent defined what is arguably within boundaries of "acceptable" and what is not.
 
I’ve been posting harsh criticisms of social media corporations here for years, never with a partisan bias. I’ve also taken an anti-censorship stance on other topics, so it’s a stretch to say I’m having a knee-jerk reaction to some pundits being canceled.

it was a more general comment. i used your comment as a stepping off point but it wasn't aimed specifically at you. sorry that wasn't clear.

And, by the same token, I might also find it baffling that someone who leans left is abandoning the traditional pro-regulation stance of the left to defend the rights of a corporation...?

indeed. a good reminder than these issues can be nuanced and there's more to politics than "you're liberal therefore you must believe..." or "you're conservative therefore you must believe..."

alasdair
 
it was a more general comment. i used your comment as a stepping off point but it wasn't aimed specifically at you. sorry that wasn't clear.

no worries, thanks for clarifying :)
indeed. a good reminder than these issues can be nuanced and there's more to politics than "you're liberal therefore you must believe..." or "you're conservative therefore you must believe..."

alasdair

nuance has become a victim of increased polarization.

i recently learned there's a good term for what's happening wrt cancel culture: a purity spiral. like a witch hunt, the danger of a community falling into the purity spiral is that once the most extreme have been purged the moderates become the next target and all that ends up left is a culture of fear where nobody is sure what they can still say.

 
I understand that concern. However, when death threats become considered an acceptable response to someone you disagree with politically (and this happens from all sides), there’s also a problem.

who considers death threats acceptable? they aren't even protected by 2A, which is the most permissive standard for free speech.
 
Apparently a lot of people on social media and crazy members of Congress (and their enablers).

Some of this can no doubt be chalked up to pandemic stresses. It's hard not to become more polarized when we have to rely on newsmedia and echo chambers to dictate what's actually going on. It's like a grand experiment where we're all stuck in Plato's cave getting cabin fever.
 
Top