Censorship means THE GOVERNMENT shuts down your speech. A business has no obligation to provide an open forum, and blip is a business. Supporting free speech policies in video hosting services is a worthy thing, but if blip chose not to host campaign videos, it would not be censorship. If the FBI showed up and told blip to take down the videos, THAT would be censorship.
Blip has the right to refuse service to anyone, and a business refusing service is not the same as censorship. A good argument can be made, though, that in the absence of alternative, equivalent platforms such a thing would have the same EFFECT as censorship. I think the limiting of access through private control of speech platforms is a major problem in a democracy/capitalist hybrid. It can certainly be as chilling as censorship, and have the same effect on the ability of all to speak freely in an environment where all can be heard, but it isn't, technically, censorship. Brook _______________________________________________________ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
