Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-dirty-job dept.

Caitlin Johnstone writes in a blog post over at Medium that corporate censorship is ramping up while people are distracted by the menace of government censorship.

It is true that it is the most controversial and repulsive speech which is most severely in need of protection, and that a government which is granted the power to silence Nazis can be expected to use that power to silence political dissent. But there is no danger of this ever happening in the United States, because corporate censorship can be used to silence anti-establishment voices with far less pushback.

Egged on by the resurfacing of obnoxious and sometimes illegal groups, more groups are pushing for, and sometimes getting, full online silence from other voices. Those in power will have corporations do any of the dirty work that might generate push back.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:45PM (#554972)

    Incorrect. The dubious language in Network Neutrality legislation conflating "unlawful content" with "illegal content" and verbiage involving "hate speech" demonstrate that Network Neutrality is actually a push for government censorship.

    Note that it is unlawful for me to sing the alphabet backwards while rubbing my belly and patting my head. There is no explicit law permitting me to do so -- but it is not illegal for me to do so. In Network Neutrality legislation, that which is not expressly permitted, such as new VOIP protocols or encryption schemes, or even distribution methods such as podcasts falls under the category of "unlawful content", and "unlawful content" may be banned from the Internet as it is grouped with "hate speech" (whatever that is) and illegal content like child porn.

    The republicans are right to stand against legislation that has ill defined speech policing language (hate speech is never concretely defined) and that which outlaws new technological innovation unless expressly permitted by legislation.

    The public is sold on Network Neutrality as some kind of "equality for data", but anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge reading that legislation would fight against it -- Unless they are for government censorship and draconian control over communication technologies. Hint: The EFF is very left wing, so while they must surely recognize the threat to free speech and innovation it fits their internal political agenda.

    Fortunately such legislation did not pass thanks to "regressive greedy republicans" otherwise saying that women and men have biological differences could be grounds for banning websites from the Internet under the nebulous "hate speech" terminology. If your host is in a deep blue state, there's no guarantee the judicial system would uphold your 1st amendment rights online -- being that they would have been destroyed by Network Neutrality legislation.

    Hard to hear, but it's clear you have not read and understood Network Neutrality legislation. Note: Some espouse that "Network Neutrality" is an ideal of equality that is not enshrined in the legislation of the same name. I would argue that the only concrete expression of Network Neutrality is the onerous legislation, and those "packet equality" ideals (while virtuous) are merely propaganda to get you to swallow the poison pill of censorship. Let us not forget how media praised the PATRIOT Act as a needed step to combat terrorism post 9/11. The events are not remotely on the same scale but the pattern is the same old manipulation technique: Hype a Problem, Promote a Reaction, Provide & Endorse a pre-made solution that only claims to solve the issue. Fool me once, Shame on... you. Fool me -- can't get fooled again. [youtube.com]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2