Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Late Great Donald Blake 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,517
In Reply To
Karl

Member Since: Tue Feb 08, 2022
Subj: Yeah, I think I was probably too oblique with making my point.
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2022 at 07:33:06 pm EST (Viewed 183 times)
Reply Subj: Of course I have no problem with that,
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2022 at 06:34:08 pm EST (Viewed 192 times)

Previous Post

You have the right to vote for whomever you want. That is the great thing about representative government, it always leads to the government a society deserves.

If you do not like a candidate you try and convince someone to vote differently.

If you do not like a platform or publisher you do not support them, and try convince others not to.

You can't preserve your rights by stopping them away. I admittedly take issue with Twitter's monopolistic practices, but regardless they have their first amendment rights as well.

There are plenty of words for people who choose their beliefs based on how their party acts, and the nicest of them is hypocrite. However, while I don't view those people as good for the process, and may wish they would not vote or take part in the conversation... and that is try on all part of the political spectrum...they still have those rights.

Remember, I made it clear I did not approve of Twitter's actions. I pointed out my disdain for Silicon Valley.

Voting, to your question, has fewer restrictions than the First Amendment. TO be clear, when I say restrictions, I mean things that literally cause harm, like threats and revenge porn not just harmed feelings.

Voting really only has restrictions for age, some forms of mental intermittency,and depending on the state felon status.

As to why the argument goes to legal right, most likely because the argument comes to people saying their freedom of speech is begin violated. Therefore, you already have to start by making the case as to why that is not the case.

The question is really a matter of nuance. But if a person uses blunt inaccurate statement out of the gate, it takes longer to get to the nitty-gritty.

However, I was not defending Twitter. I was telling Freekyle he was wrong. Again, he used a blunt and inaccurate statement by saying Twitter was not practicing anything.

I made it clear I did not approve of Twitter's actions. I was simply pointing out he was strong.

It was less a political statement as pointing out someone's ignorance on the subject. Less a political statement than being pedantic.

By the way, I am not a liberal, or a conservative. So... you are probably asking the wrong guy. As a former teacher of mines used to say, "don't touch the vodka in my desk." However, more on topic, she used ti say "when you assume you make and ass out of 'u' and 'me'."



I agree with a lot of what you said here, but I should have been clear. As I say, I was a bit too oblique with making my point. What I'm saying is that when talking about a complicated political issue like this, the idea that we only think about whether the people have a right to be doing what their doing is I think limited and unproductive. When we talk about policy or political ethos or political justification, very rarely are we limited to talking about whether people are doing anything illegal. As a matter of fact I'd say the majority of the time legalioty isn't the crucial distinction at hand. So with this Rogan/Spotify/boycott/cancelation issue, I think it's weird that so many people are so quick to think the entire political issue can be circumscribed by determining if anyone is violating the law.



I also have to add here, that when it comes to the issue of what a large corporate business is entitled to do, as a leftist, I can't by any means consign the instinct that because they're a private company, they should be able to do anything they want. As matter of fact, no one short of a libertarian should be exercising this kind of a position if they want to be coherent with respect to their political theory. We regularly presuppose that private companies--especially concerning their hiring and firing practices, and how they treat their workers--can't just do whatever they please. Labor practices, OSHA policy, anti-discrimination laws, etc. are all premised on the idea that the limits of what a private company can do even within its conventional sphere of control is and should be politically imposed if there's a potential danger or deleterious effect to the societal well being or common good. I don't think that has bearing on every aspect of this, especially given the fact that much of the activity (the boycott, Rogan himself, the public generally) is acting voluntarily. I'm just saying we need to be very wary anytime someone utters, "well there a private company so it's up to them."


And I also want to say here that I think despite how we settle on things with this particular problem, there is definitely a freedom of speech issue at hand with whether or not Rogan and the integrity of his podcast will ultimately be tolerated without being broken, as it were. As I've mentioned before, it's important to distinguish the 1st Amendment which is specific to government infringement on freedom of speech, assembly, etc. and a broader notion of the freedom of speech. I think the freedom of speech is better understood as a general condition of a society rather than the absence of a specific kind of government activity. Do the members of society feel free to express their thoughts, feelings, ideas free of extortion, reprisal, or repressive influences? While the State is the most immediate, most salient, and most powerful agent, we can't be naïve to the fact that there are other sources of censorship. The Church can censor obviously, educational spaces can censor, and more relevant to our lives lately, you often have what they call parallel censorship, which is when members of the community censor one another, like say with the Puritans in Salem in the 17th century.

And more to the point here, you have censorship coming from the private business sector. Now, I'm not saying that freedom of speech in certain (very narrow) ways doesn't have to be balanced against other values or interests, but the point is we have to respect that billionaires and corporate capital have a capacity to bring massive pressure to bear to coerce people into not feeling comfortable expressing themselves, especially insofar as the thing they was to express is controversial. I'd also argue given the technological situation we find ourselves in where more and more of our public discourse takes place online; and more and more of it is cut up and dominated by a small number of Big Tech media empires, we should as readily associate the private company as a potential threat to our freedom of speech as we do government overreach.


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


P.S. Sorry I assumed things about your political identity. I of all people ought to know better lol


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.82 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software