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 for reading Rachel: I cannot imagine how disturbing it must be to see Christianity being used as a justification for these terrible acts too. It's terrible for all of us, but for those who have committed to spreading the Word it must be a truly difficult moment.
Yes, although I realize that people have been twisting religion for their own purposes probably as far back as humanity has existed. In my opinion, anything that does not offer life-giving energy and love and hope is a twisted version of the gift we have been given.
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.
Thanks for these thoughts Linda: what you are saying is exactly right. There's a context for speech -- the real trick is figuring what kinds of censorship weaken the public sphere, and which might strengthen it. Arguably, censoring lies can strengthen it.
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!
Dear Tanya, Thanks for being the first to jump in! I think the dilemma you describe is an important one, and it is why I do describe myself as a first amendment absolutist. What seems like a knottier problem to me is how people like Hawley deliver their lies and conspiracy theories under respectable cover. We have a long history of right-wing media, and there are numerous imprints that publish conservative books (and pay well for them since they are often bulk-ordered and distributed for free at conservative events.) But when a mainstream outlet publishes a book by such a person it helps to brand him as politically respectable. So in this case, he isn't being silenced: he is being denied the outlet he chose. That would be my argument, anyway.
Much thanx for your response. I hear your argument but wonder how that would get applied to the denial we have in posting questions on the current health narrative being pummeled at us? Social media seems to be using your argument setting themselves up as the authority on what is real information, or not? MSM, too, will not allow scientists and doctors access when they raise questions about the science, or lack of it that is ongoing? How do we separate what is meaningful rejection/refusal of access and just plain support of a propaganda goal?
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 for reading Rachel: I cannot imagine how disturbing it must be to see Christianity being used as a justification for these terrible acts too. It's terrible for all of us, but for those who have committed to spreading the Word it must be a truly difficult moment.
Yes, although I realize that people have been twisting religion for their own purposes probably as far back as humanity has existed. In my opinion, anything that does not offer life-giving energy and love and hope is a twisted version of the gift we have been given.
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.
Thanks for these thoughts Linda: what you are saying is exactly right. There's a context for speech -- the real trick is figuring what kinds of censorship weaken the public sphere, and which might strengthen it. Arguably, censoring lies can strengthen it.
Whoops. I deleted my response by mistake.
Drat! I was just coming back to it!
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!
Dear Tanya, Thanks for being the first to jump in! I think the dilemma you describe is an important one, and it is why I do describe myself as a first amendment absolutist. What seems like a knottier problem to me is how people like Hawley deliver their lies and conspiracy theories under respectable cover. We have a long history of right-wing media, and there are numerous imprints that publish conservative books (and pay well for them since they are often bulk-ordered and distributed for free at conservative events.) But when a mainstream outlet publishes a book by such a person it helps to brand him as politically respectable. So in this case, he isn't being silenced: he is being denied the outlet he chose. That would be my argument, anyway.
Much thanx for your response. I hear your argument but wonder how that would get applied to the denial we have in posting questions on the current health narrative being pummeled at us? Social media seems to be using your argument setting themselves up as the authority on what is real information, or not? MSM, too, will not allow scientists and doctors access when they raise questions about the science, or lack of it that is ongoing? How do we separate what is meaningful rejection/refusal of access and just plain support of a propaganda goal?
Those are all outstanding questions, Tanya, and should structure our thinking as we move ahead.