They don't have to provide the audience. Merely a chance to reach them. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:33 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > -- 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.
