Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Faith Presses On

What is permitted to be posted is pretty much up to the owner of the Web Site. It’s the government that’s not supposed to censor speech. What is scary is putting the UN in charge of the Internet as they are not hesitant to censor.


13 posted on 06/15/2016 12:15:01 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: JimSEA

“What is permitted to be posted is pretty much up to the owner of the Web Site. It’s the government that’s not supposed to censor speech. What is scary is putting the UN in charge of the Internet as they are not hesitant to censor.”

Yes, I agree, and I understand. And there are justifiable reasons to limit commentary in some cases, just like certain groups do the same.

Christian groups on college campuses shouldn’t be forced to have non-Christian members, much less leaders. A Christian college shouldn’t be forced to keep faculty or students who reject the basics of Christianity in any way.

I also used to post some at the Christianity.com forums years ago, and they limited the comments in certain sections depending on the posters’ beliefs.

Here, too, some limits make sense. I don’t have a problem with similar leftist sites, atheistic, ex-Christian, or whatever the case may be, limiting who can post and what can be said.

The problem, though, is with sites, especially major news and social media sites, that say they do allow for a range of opinions, but then only target posts that are Christian and conservative, and not because the posts make hateful comments, but because the site owners merely feel it’s all right for them to censor views they consider “wrong.”

When the major “mainstream” media and social media already do that themselves, rather than protecting free speech, even if they don’t agree with it, then it is that much easier for the government to “force” censorship on them.

In that case, the “government” isn’t forcing anything. It’s just providing the laws to back up what these news organizations and web sites want to do anyway.

Twitter, for one, says that they somehow need such help to combat Islamic extremists, who use Twitter a lot. But no doubt ISIS will keep using it just as much while those comments that are critical of Islam will instantly disappear.


14 posted on 06/15/2016 12:31:54 PM PDT by Faith Presses On (Above all, politics should serve the Great Commission, "preparing the way for the Lord.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: JimSEA
What is permitted to be posted is pretty much up to the owner of the Web Site. It’s the government that’s not supposed to censor speech.

What governments do instead, is to tell site owners that if they don't "voluntarily" crack down on "hate speech", the government can make bad things happen. The average site owner is there to make a buck, not provide a forum for politics. Threaten his profit margin, and he will obey.

21 posted on 06/15/2016 3:49:29 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Big government is attractive to those who think that THEY will be in control of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson