Posted on 05/14/2019 11:39:07 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell
Ever since the unanimous 1964 Sullivan decision by the Warren Court, Democrats have felt entitled, not only to their own opinions, but to their own facts.Sullivan says that government officials have a very high bar to pass in order to sue for libel. Since Democrats align themselves with the natural political tendency of journalism, Democrats never get libeled, and Republicans often do.
Sullivan did not consider the fact that wire services homogenize journalism and cause journalists to go along and get along with each other and with Democrat politicians, nor the fact that journalism which knows it is negative (“If it bleeds, it leads) but claims to be objective is cynical towards society and naive towards government.
IMHO, Sullivan is bad law.
“But, it’s a private company.”Aren’t they publicly owned?It is owned by shareholders. Shareholders are people, and they are not agents of the government.I quote that to you because you used the term “public” in an ambiguous sense. “Society” is a different thing than “government.” “Liberals” like to use “society” or “public” as euphemisms for government.SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . .the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
The politicians FR are in bed with? Conservatives need to get over this fear of using the government to win. The Left has set the rules, as they are today, use them against them.
The Left no longer embodies the principal of “I disagree with they say, but will defend their right to say it”. They want any and all means to be used to destroy you, destroy this country, destroy Western Civilization. The Right is trying to play the chess game by the rules, while the Left makes their moves as if every piece is a Queen.
In any fascist, totalitarian government there is no distinction between society and government. Government controls society and adjudicates societal norms.
All totalitarian states are democratic. That is, they derive their power from the majority to the exclusion of the minority. In reality these majorities are comprised of smaller groups that are consistently oppressed by government oligarchs.
A republic guarantees the rights of the minority. No democracy does this. The US is not a democracy. It is a republic.
“If a private company took control of all the roads and closed them to conservatives every Election Day, elections would become a mockery and the resulting government would be an illegitimate tyranny.”
And military intelligence and the NSA and CIA have ties to some of the leading groups promoting Internet censorship, such as the Alliance for Securing Democracy and Hamilton 68. The intelligence community is using state-funded "private" tech companies to run an illegal psyop against the American people.
Very good point.
The article makes some valid points, but omits two fundamental points:
1. These are publicly-traded corporations, not private companies. (Try telling the SEC and IRS that they are private companies.) Operating in the private sector does not equal being a private company!
2. They are already regulated by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 Section 230: They are given content liability protection, as non-publishers, in exchange for not governing that content, as publishers!
We do not need new legislation; we need existing legislation enforced.
thanks for the clarifications.
Like all other areas in our free market economy, free enterprise systems and free press publications and services, it’s always buyer’s choice/buyer beware. If you don’t like the service or can’t tolerate the politics of the service, don’t subscribe, don’t read, don’t use it.
Amen! I could support anti-fraud requirements that they disclose their blocking policies; anything more is just plain socialism.
Abandoning our limited-government principles would be a bigger loss than anything we might hope to thereby "win".
Is that how creepy men were kept out of girls bathrooms?
Abandoning our limited-government principles would be a bigger loss than anything we might hope to thereby "win".
Is that how creepy men were kept out of girls bathrooms?
Limited government does not mean no government. Educate yourself.
your limited government hasn’t worked.
He’s going to have to make better arguments than this.
His entire first point is premised on the idea that the techs’ actions are solely the result of pressure from Democratic Senators. The only example he can scare up is Kamala Harris saying she would hold them accountable for spreading hate or misinformation. That’s it.
No political bias from the Silicon Valley owners and employees. No pressure from advertisers responding to boycotts. No snowflake PC behavior.
In fact, banning conservatives is “...not the voluntary behavior of private companies.”
See, it isn’t Zuckerberg or Google, it’s that freshman Senator who wields all the power. Never mind that Republicans in Congress have been more aggressive in hauling the tech lords into hearings and berating them for bias.
Why does Greenfield make such a transparently weak argument? Because he understands that the 1st Amendment applies only to government action so he has to pretend that it’s somehow the government suppressing the speech.
Even when he tries to invoke the Constitution with Packingham VS. N.C. he has to admit that the court only addressed what government could or couldn’t do, not the social media companies.
The second DARPA argument is even more desperate. By this logic the government can regulate any and everything on the internet.
Not only that, they can make your eye doctor give you LASIK therapy for free since NASA developed it.
I agree this is a hard problem but making unprincipled arguments of convenience doesn’t help.
I thought his examples of government officials threatening private companies with repercussions if they didn't deplatform people the government officials didn't like was a pretty D@mn good argument.
His entire first point is premised on the idea that the techs’ actions are solely the result of pressure from Democratic Senators. The only example he can scare up is Kamala Harris saying she would hold them accountable for spreading hate or misinformation. That’s it.
Did he mention China threatening Tech companies? Because they do. Wikipedia is now banned in China, by the way. Google falls all over itself to conform to whatever China tells it to do. So does Microsoft and other companies.
Other governments will use pressure to force American companies to comply if our Laws allow them to censor *ANY* speech. Turkey is already threatening legal repercussions if anyone violates their anti-blasphemy laws.
You do not grasp how big of a door you open when you allow the censorship of speech by communications companies.
Allow companies to be pressured by governments, and you will effectively destroy all free speech in America. Allowing the a choice to censor is what will create the pressure for them to censor from other countries, and indeed from our own government officials.
PING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.