General / Off-Topic It's Not a Conspiracy

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
AluminumAlloy said:
Anyways, censorship doesn't always have to do with the government; as there's biased censorship and corporate censorship.
Click to expand...

You're talking about freedom of speech. Corporations cannot limit your (from an US perspective, which neither of us are) 1st amamendment right. You, me and every other citizen can censor whatever we want: it doesnt limit freedom of speech. Again: If I were to put giant sculptures of my reproductive organs on your porch, you'd be totally within your right to remove them without 'limiting my freedom of speech'. Your porch, your choice. Your website, your choice. Its called freedom.

As for the XMas thing: it was not intended as an insult, and I did mean it sincerely. If I were convinced my freedom of speech was being curtailed I'd be upset. I assume the same applies to you,. I dont want to be upset. I assume the same applies to you. In this case, your fears are unwarranted because a private website not showing something you want to see is in no way an infringement of your freedom of speech. If you were to understand that, you would not feel the distress of believing your rights were under attack. I dont want you to feel distress, so I encourage you to take the steps needed to make you understand your fears are unfounded. And if you'd rather not than I wish you a wonderful christmas with friends and family all the same. :)
 

AluminumAlloy

AluminumAlloy
sleutelbos said:
As for the XMas thing: it was not intended as an insult, and I did mean it sincerely. If I were convinced my freedom of speech was being curtailed I'd be upset. I assume the same applies to you,. I dont want to be upset. I assume the same applies to you. In this case, your fears are unwarranted because a private website not showing something you want to see is in no way an infringement of your freedom of speech. If you were to understand that, you would not feel the distress of believing your rights were under attack. I dont want you to feel distress, so I encourage you to take the steps needed to make you understand your fears are unfounded. And if you'd rather not than I wish you a wonderful christmas with friends and family all the same. :)
Click to expand...

Oh no, don't worry about it; I don't want to be the kind of person that thinks everything I say is right. But with the corporate-controlled mainstream news media, it's a different story to them, haha!
And seasons greetings to you as well, thanks.
 
Last edited:

Sunleader

Sunleader
Well. On the Media there is nothing you can do on this.
Its their Platform. So they can decide to Delete whatever they want from it and Censor whatever they see Fit.
This is an Basic Right Granted to them by the Laws.
You dont have a Right to use their Platform to Publish Comments.

On the Website Blocking etc thats going to be Decided by Courts. Not by the Mainstream Media. The Mainstream Media can Talk big here. And send out Block Requests. But the Site being Blocked is up to the Courts.
If the Courts see no Legal Base to Block a Website. That Website will not be taken down or will be available right away again.

Websites like this not popping up in Search Engines and or other Platform that the Mainstream Media Provides. Is again their good Right. They are not Legally Forced to give an Platform to others.
 

Cydramech

C
AJW said:
I don't think anyone has advocated 'censoring' them (and no, a privately-run website choosing what content it carries isn't censorship, any more than someone not letting me tattoo 'imbecile' on their forehead is).
Click to expand...

These private entities are providing a forum of discussion, and therefore they perform the act of censoring by removing content by definition. The only argument you can make is that they have the right to censorship, which they do, but you cannot provide a claim that it isn't censorship unless you want to twist the definition thereof. Someone not letting you tattoo "imbecile" on their forehead is not even remotely comparable.

What people seem to want is accurate labelling. If someone sells you a tin labelled 'baked beans', you have every right to expect the content to be baked beans. Not rusty nails in sump-oil. If Heinz tried that, they would have the pants sued off them. I can't see why perpetrators of the fake-news-clickbait scam should expect to be treated any differently.
Click to expand...

And who's going to do the accurate labeling, hmm? Oh yeah, the very system that creates the world's biggest lies in the first place. After all, no western government has ever lied or they won't lie because they promised to not lie anymore, unlike when they lied about terrorism, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi, Turkey, or Russia or how they lied about WWI and WWII, the Vietnam war, Contra, etc., eh?

- - - Updated - - -

Sunleader said:
Well. On the Media there is nothing you can do on this.
Its their Platform. So they can decide to Delete whatever they want from it and Censor whatever they see Fit.
This is an Basic Right Granted to them by the Laws.
You dont have a Right to use their Platform to Publish Comments.

On the Website Blocking etc thats going to be Decided by Courts. Not by the Mainstream Media. The Mainstream Media can Talk big here. And send out Block Requests. But the Site being Blocked is up to the Courts.
If the Courts see no Legal Base to Block a Website. That Website will not be taken down or will be available right away again.

Websites like this not popping up in Search Engines and or other Platform that the Mainstream Media Provides. Is again their good Right. They are not Legally Forced to give an Platform to others.
Click to expand...

No amount of lawmaking makes anything a right, let alone make anything right itself.
 

znôrt

znôrt
he who owns the press owns the news. this is as old as, well, the press.

everybody lies. an inflamed defense of truth by a self declared trump supporter though, that's comical. in some dramatic sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom