I heard an investigative journalist yesterday comment that the US government isn’t inclined to move against IT companies continuously monitoring their customers because it saves them the trouble of doing it and builds an information resource on Americans they can call on any time. The same thing of course is happening with censorship which surprise surprise is being directed at both left and right anti-establishment opinions. Would Orwell have expected Big Brother to be a 3P operation?
Ted, Private media companies CAN publish what they want. It’s not censorship when one of them decides to NOT be a platform for deranged extremist conspiracy theorists. Can I accuse you of censorship because you don’t reflect MY views in YOUR cartoons ? If Alex Jones has anything meaningful to say, people will seek out his blog posts.
So, Ted, what’s your alternative? That “someone” can force private companies to publish materials those companies would otherwise reject?
The obvious questions:
What “someone”? Are you happy to leave enforcement of that to the current US government?Is it that EVERYTHING must be published by EVERYONE if demanded? What control do publishers actually have in that world?What about scarce resources? If we all want an hour-long show on Fox, there aren’t enough hours in the day. Who decides? Clearly not Fox, given your objections.Are you willing to apply that to your work as well? Will you let other people force you to draw cartoons that you violently disagree with? If not, why are you special?
And, yes, not doing business with someone is not at all the same thing as “censorship,” even if you did business before that point. Even when the LA Times does it to you, even if it was because of unseemly pressure by a partial owner. Every single media outlet ever in existence rejects vastly more things than they ever publish — that’s how the world works.
Unfortunately Ted, you have a dog in this fight. It detracts from your objectivity.
When a publisher is forced to run something they want to run, it’s just the flip side of the censorship coin. Or do you think that the media should be forced to run “official” news, opinions, and even comics?
The U.S. is a corporate state. Corporations are not subject to the 1st Amendment – unless it’s something some exec is saying or doing under the corporate banner, then they’re a “person”. But all is well, you’re perfectly free to say whatever you want in whatever crevices in the corporate state you can find.
The same applies in almost every part of life. You have all those freedoms delineated in the Constitution – as long as you’re not on “private property”. (A principle which is worshipped far above the Constitution). Back to the cartoon – how much of the internet is not private property?
There’s de facto censorship and de jure censorship. De jure censorship is when the government forbids speech; de facto censorship is when consumers reject a product or service in the marketplace——it’s popularly known as a boycott.
There used to be something called the Fairness Doctrine and it used to work fairly well. It should be reinstated and it should be extended to the Internet under some circumstances. After all, the Internet was developed with our (the taxpayers) money. As GreggW points out above censorship is widely used by the MSM.
Ted usually agree with you but in the case of Alex Jones not so much. The man makes things up to incite hatred and fear. There is an article today where four people had developed a planned and acquired the arms to attack Islamaberg a tiny community in the Catskills that Mr. Jones has claimed is a training ground for Islamic terrorists. It’s really just a few families farming so attacking them would simply be cold blooded murder. Lying stroke fear and hatred is no different than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and is not protected speech.
So every publication must run everything submitted to it or it’s censorship? I should re-post every single item I see on facebook? I’m pretty sure if you saw something that showed what a fine person HRC is, you would choose not to make a cartoon about it. So you’re just as guilty of censorship.
He’s making a valid point and I think it would be better to allow Jones’ content into the public space and then refute it. This also shows the weakness of depending on these platforms. If they didn’t exist all of these idiots would be standing on soapboxes in the park. But at least they’d own the soapbox.
Daeder over 5 years ago
There’s free speech and then there’s defamation; not the same and not both protected by The Constitution.
Teto85 Premium Member over 5 years ago
How’s that LA Times thingy working out for you Ted?
GreggW Premium Member over 5 years ago
I heard an investigative journalist yesterday comment that the US government isn’t inclined to move against IT companies continuously monitoring their customers because it saves them the trouble of doing it and builds an information resource on Americans they can call on any time. The same thing of course is happening with censorship which surprise surprise is being directed at both left and right anti-establishment opinions. Would Orwell have expected Big Brother to be a 3P operation?
shakeswilly over 5 years ago
Ted, Private media companies CAN publish what they want. It’s not censorship when one of them decides to NOT be a platform for deranged extremist conspiracy theorists. Can I accuse you of censorship because you don’t reflect MY views in YOUR cartoons ? If Alex Jones has anything meaningful to say, people will seek out his blog posts.
Andrew Wheeler over 5 years ago
So, Ted, what’s your alternative? That “someone” can force private companies to publish materials those companies would otherwise reject?
The obvious questions:
What “someone”? Are you happy to leave enforcement of that to the current US government?Is it that EVERYTHING must be published by EVERYONE if demanded? What control do publishers actually have in that world?What about scarce resources? If we all want an hour-long show on Fox, there aren’t enough hours in the day. Who decides? Clearly not Fox, given your objections.Are you willing to apply that to your work as well? Will you let other people force you to draw cartoons that you violently disagree with? If not, why are you special?And, yes, not doing business with someone is not at all the same thing as “censorship,” even if you did business before that point. Even when the LA Times does it to you, even if it was because of unseemly pressure by a partial owner. Every single media outlet ever in existence rejects vastly more things than they ever publish — that’s how the world works.
John Leonard Premium Member over 5 years ago
Unfortunately Ted, you have a dog in this fight. It detracts from your objectivity.
When a publisher is forced to run something they want to run, it’s just the flip side of the censorship coin. Or do you think that the media should be forced to run “official” news, opinions, and even comics?
danholt over 5 years ago
I don’t consider loss of sponsors or outlets to be censorship, they just don’t like what you’re selling…
Cerabooge over 5 years ago
The U.S. is a corporate state. Corporations are not subject to the 1st Amendment – unless it’s something some exec is saying or doing under the corporate banner, then they’re a “person”. But all is well, you’re perfectly free to say whatever you want in whatever crevices in the corporate state you can find.
The same applies in almost every part of life. You have all those freedoms delineated in the Constitution – as long as you’re not on “private property”. (A principle which is worshipped far above the Constitution). Back to the cartoon – how much of the internet is not private property?
cocavan11 over 5 years ago
There’s de facto censorship and de jure censorship. De jure censorship is when the government forbids speech; de facto censorship is when consumers reject a product or service in the marketplace——it’s popularly known as a boycott.
De facto censorship is much, much more effective.
mattro65 over 5 years ago
There used to be something called the Fairness Doctrine and it used to work fairly well. It should be reinstated and it should be extended to the Internet under some circumstances. After all, the Internet was developed with our (the taxpayers) money. As GreggW points out above censorship is widely used by the MSM.
mikemck over 5 years ago
Ted usually agree with you but in the case of Alex Jones not so much. The man makes things up to incite hatred and fear. There is an article today where four people had developed a planned and acquired the arms to attack Islamaberg a tiny community in the Catskills that Mr. Jones has claimed is a training ground for Islamic terrorists. It’s really just a few families farming so attacking them would simply be cold blooded murder. Lying stroke fear and hatred is no different than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and is not protected speech.
halvincobbes Premium Member over 5 years ago
So every publication must run everything submitted to it or it’s censorship? I should re-post every single item I see on facebook? I’m pretty sure if you saw something that showed what a fine person HRC is, you would choose not to make a cartoon about it. So you’re just as guilty of censorship.
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] over 5 years ago
Free speech does not include incitement to violence.
Purple-Stater Premium Member over 5 years ago
I welcome any evidence that our Founders intended the First Amendment to give people the right to lie.
ED CANTWELL over 5 years ago
He’s making a valid point and I think it would be better to allow Jones’ content into the public space and then refute it. This also shows the weakness of depending on these platforms. If they didn’t exist all of these idiots would be standing on soapboxes in the park. But at least they’d own the soapbox.