Linda Dunne, here is your comment: "And another trick is figuring out who makes the decisions about what kind of censorship is warranted and even, in these days of "disinformation," which are the lies. How do we form consensus? How do we chose leaders? Can we have a viable democracy, in the traditional sense?"
I agree. These are all good questions: I think people should not be able to broadcast things that are not true and claim that they are: I think there should be co sequences for that. Fox News has been brainwashing people for 20 years with falsehoods -- falsehoods that are often contradicted by their own news department!.
Thank you for presenting reality so clearly. It takes so little to become a spin doctor of self-righteousness, flaming passions of destructiveness. The important, but more difficult work, is determining how to work in harmony, holding a light to lead to reasonableness.
Thanks again for sharing your insights into what's becoming a very complex set of issues that we all have to grapple with now. At 79, I'm an old time believer in free speech. It was at the core of The New School's values. But I can see that my beliefs depended, in part, on what I believed to be assumptions about rational discussion and general agreements to talk before shooting. We're not there now. I don't have any answers at this point, just questions and doubts. BTW, there's an interesting piece that you've probably read in the NYT on Josh and far right Christianity; it puts the whole dilemma in another light. People like us are products of enlightenment who are living in a time of encroaching dogmatism. Keep writing; I'll keep reading.
This feels like a very slippery slope. it is like Biden saying he won't mandate vaccines but businesses have a right to refuse service to those who won't take them. I do agree the morals clause is too broad and, I would submit, intentionally so. It is a loophole the size of the Pacific ocean which means it is simply the cover for any owner's personal prejudices. Not that I support Hawley--I abhor him. But as the ACLU said when defending the KKK's attempt to march in S? N? Carolina--if you can't support the free speech of your enemies, then you cannot expect yours to be protected either. Today we are being censured for many topics on social media and the mass media all in the name of corporate profit. We are in deep doo as they say!
Linda Dunne, here is your comment: "And another trick is figuring out who makes the decisions about what kind of censorship is warranted and even, in these days of "disinformation," which are the lies. How do we form consensus? How do we chose leaders? Can we have a viable democracy, in the traditional sense?"
I agree. These are all good questions: I think people should not be able to broadcast things that are not true and claim that they are: I think there should be co sequences for that. Fox News has been brainwashing people for 20 years with falsehoods -- falsehoods that are often contradicted by their own news department!.
Thank you for presenting reality so clearly. It takes so little to become a spin doctor of self-righteousness, flaming passions of destructiveness. The important, but more difficult work, is determining how to work in harmony, holding a light to lead to reasonableness.
Thanks again for sharing your insights into what's becoming a very complex set of issues that we all have to grapple with now. At 79, I'm an old time believer in free speech. It was at the core of The New School's values. But I can see that my beliefs depended, in part, on what I believed to be assumptions about rational discussion and general agreements to talk before shooting. We're not there now. I don't have any answers at this point, just questions and doubts. BTW, there's an interesting piece that you've probably read in the NYT on Josh and far right Christianity; it puts the whole dilemma in another light. People like us are products of enlightenment who are living in a time of encroaching dogmatism. Keep writing; I'll keep reading.
This feels like a very slippery slope. it is like Biden saying he won't mandate vaccines but businesses have a right to refuse service to those who won't take them. I do agree the morals clause is too broad and, I would submit, intentionally so. It is a loophole the size of the Pacific ocean which means it is simply the cover for any owner's personal prejudices. Not that I support Hawley--I abhor him. But as the ACLU said when defending the KKK's attempt to march in S? N? Carolina--if you can't support the free speech of your enemies, then you cannot expect yours to be protected either. Today we are being censured for many topics on social media and the mass media all in the name of corporate profit. We are in deep doo as they say!