On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:47 PM Steve Timko <[email protected]> wrote:
> Free speech pretty much requires an audience. > Perhaps. But there is no legal guarantee which forces a company to provide such an audience It’s not really free speech if the only place you can say it is, say, in > front of the Jehovah’s Witness Hall. So Alex Jones can proselytize as much > as he wants from his website, but as Adam noted, “to a certain generation, > access to YouTube or Facebook is tantamount to how we communicate in 2018.” > Video is probably Alex Jones’ most effective way to communicate. I followed > him daily for about three or four months about eight years ago and while he > has crazy stuff written on his website, his absolutely most batcrap crazy > stuff comes from his videos. YouTube has close to a monopoly on delivery of > video, except for what Vimeo and the porn sites. So getting kicked off > YouTube and trying to deliver a video message is almost like requiring > someone build their own sidewalk to talk to the public. > The classic defense of free speech is Milton's Areopagitica, which argues > that if truth and lies fight it out in public, truth will win. Sadly, Jones > has shown that is not true. How people believe, for instance, that a school > shooting was staged so someone could take away guns is incomprehensible. > But as with a lot of Trump supporters, facts don’t matter. Truth is not > winning in a public forum. > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:19 PM Doug Eastick <[email protected]> wrote: > >> side story..... >> >> honest.... I stumbled across the story because I like music festivals and >> EDM (electronic dance music)...... I probably saw it on reddit >> /r/Coachella or something. >> >> There is a DJ that got tired of youtube taking down his 60 minutes videos >> of his sets. youtube (or someone) claimed copyright issues. So he started >> uploading them to pornhub.com. I didn't bookmark the video, and >> searching for it on pornhub is not giving me the result I am seeking to >> make my point, so I'll just go back to watching Big Brother now. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:05 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:22 AM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The interesting things is that these companies tend to be quite at good >>>> at keeping some things off their sites - notably porn. Sure they also end >>>> up banning Renaissance paintings, iconic photographs from the Vietnam war, >>>> and mothers feeding their babies. But the algorithms seem reasonably good >>>> at identifying bare skin. >>>> >>> >>> So, I feel like this actually supports my side of the argument. When FB >>> censors classic art, historically important photographs and images of >>> breastfeeding mothers, I do feel like it is an unjustified limitation on >>> free speech. If they want to ban porn fine, but put in the effort to make >>> at least some distinction between that and the other important and >>> non-pornographic representations of human nudity. And since these are fuzzy >>> categories, be prepared to err on the side of allowing a little bit of porn >>> so we don’t lose important aspects of humanity. >>> >>> Again, I do insist this is about free speech, though it if helps you can >>> read that as “culture of free speech” or “free speech values” if it helps >>> distinghiush it from the First Amendment. The US Constitution guarantees >>> speech free of government interference, but it does not have a monopoly on >>> the values and culture of free expression, which is a fundamental >>> characteristic of the American Idea. I know that is not true of our >>> European cousins (I once had a long conversation with a British colleague >>> who scolded me on the American insistence on making a fetish of free >>> expression, which I took as a huge compliment). >>> >>> I actually have not read any serious source who argues that banning >>> Jones violates the First Amendment so I am not sure why we are hearing this >>> being disputed so much. >>> >>>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
