Jump to content

Censorship on the internet


Dell
 Share

Recommended Posts

ive pondered this a lot, first of all, facebook and social media are businesses, you are using their business, if you disagree with them and they kick you out is it called sensorship? 

if a restaurant refuses to exclude you because you wear rubber boots and overalls and want to order a steak is it called discrimination? what about a church because you believe differently and they dont allow you in leadership? 

I could see it being called sensorship if I put up my own website, paid for the webname, paid for the hosting service, and then someone blocked my site off the internet, but when you are using someone elses stuff you are under THEIR rules I would think. 

Kind of like when we say something here that is up to someone elses discretion no sensorship since we are not owners/paying? 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, searcyfarms said:

ive pondered this a lot, first of all, facebook and social media are businesses, you are using their business, if you disagree with them and they kick you out is it called sensorship? 

if a restaurant refuses to exclude you because you wear rubber boots and overalls and want to order a steak is it called discrimination? what about a church because you believe differently and they dont allow you in leadership? 

I could see it being called sensorship if I put up my own website, paid for the webname, paid for the hosting service, and then someone blocked my site off the internet, but when you are using someone elses stuff you are under THEIR rules I would think. 

Kind of like when we say something here that is up to someone elses discretion no sensorship since we are not owners/paying? 

 

 

Because under section 230 they were granted specific protections under the law that facilitated their "busineses" growth. Exceptions that  protected free speech and shielded them from liability of said free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, searcyfarms said:

ive pondered this a lot, first of all, facebook and social media are businesses, you are using their business, if you disagree with them and they kick you out is it called sensorship? 

if a restaurant refuses to exclude you because you wear rubber boots and overalls and want to order a steak is it called discrimination? what about a church because you believe differently and they dont allow you in leadership? 

I could see it being called sensorship if I put up my own website, paid for the webname, paid for the hosting service, and then someone blocked my site off the internet, but when you are using someone elses stuff you are under THEIR rules I would think. 

Kind of like when we say something here that is up to someone elses discretion no sensorship since we are not owners/paying? 

 

 

In Facebook case I believe absolutely it is censorship. Might be on a technicality,  but it is. They are out to only let the message out they want. Jmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful boys... you are heading for a poofing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to say thanks to BJ FOR allowing this to survive so far.   It is an important topic for the usa.  That said I know we are skating the edges of rules set by owners of this great site and honoring those out of respect shouldn't be an issue.   Poofing a thread here has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.   Hope we can stay in our lane with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, red211 said:

I was going to say thanks to BJ FOR allowing this to survive so far.   It is an important topic for the usa.  That said I know we are skating the edges of rules set by owners of this great site and honoring those out of respect shouldn't be an issue.   Poofing a thread here has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.   Hope we can stay in our lane with this one.

This transends Politics. People that aren't able to see that have a lot to do with why we are in this pickle.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When each of us joined this forum, we agreed to follow the rules that Sallie has put in place. https://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/guidelines/

The last line of those guidelines states

Quote

We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.

This ability to remove content is a form of censorship, which again you agreed to when you joined.

BJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iowaboy1965 said:

In Facebook case I believe absolutely it is censorship. Might be on a technicality,  but it is. They are out to only let the message out they want. Jmo

i dont think we are nearing POOF area - I was just making a case  (debating) - I am as true blooded as an american there is and support everything about the constitution. I believe in free speech to the core - however - when you are putting your dung on someone elses doorstep they have the right to kick you back to the curb dont they?  

if I had a website and it was paid for by me and ran by me and I had my own rules/regs ( just like red power here ) where does it say i have to allow EVERYONE to be allowed to put whatever they want on it w/out me auditing or removing it? I have protection from their stupidity supposedly from 230 but still its my place and so I can do what i want within the bounds of the rules? I dont see anything where it says I HAVE to let everyone have free reign to blast whatever they want on social mega sights if I owned one either ( am I wrong? )  

Do I see bias well of course, if I had a website it would be biased too. Do I think what is happening is right or fair -  NO but you have to remember courts do not determine what is FAIR and JUST, they determine the law as its written. I had to learn this painfully thru my divorce. 

Kind of like if I want everyone at my golf course to wear spikes that are plastic, you wear them or you dont play. You dont come spewing vulgarities in my church and free speeching your agenda all you want either, its the lords house and there are rules for behavior I am held accountable to.  

What about a baptist coming into a catholic church spewing his agenda and views. Should that be called a free speech violation when I kick him out because I am catholic? 

Ok - some will say that is a church/state thing maybe ? 

What if I have a radio station/program, I own it, do i have to let every one with their agenda on my radio station come on and spew it however they want or can I say NO? 

Is that censorship? 

im curious what you guys think ive been all over the place on this thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, searcyfarms said:

i dont think we are nearing POOF area - I was just making a case  (debating) - I am as true blooded as an american there is and support everything about the constitution. I believe in free speech to the core - however - when you are putting your dung on someone elses doorstep they have the right to kick you back to the curb dont they?  

if I had a website and it was paid for by me and ran by me and I had my own rules/regs ( just like red power here ) where does it say i have to allow EVERYONE to be allowed to put whatever they want on it w/out me auditing or removing it? I have protection from their stupidity supposedly from 230 but still its my place and so I can do what i want within the bounds of the rules? I dont see anything where it says I HAVE to let everyone have free reign to blast whatever they want on social mega sights if I owned one either ( am I wrong? )  

Do I see bias well of course, if I had a website it would be biased too. Do I think what is happening is right or fair -  NO but you have to remember courts do not determine what is FAIR and JUST, they determine the law as its written. I had to learn this painfully thru my divorce. 

Kind of like if I want everyone at my golf course to wear spikes that are plastic, you wear them or you dont play. You dont come spewing vulgarities in my church and free speeching your agenda all you want either, its the lords house and there are rules for behavior I am held accountable to.  

What about a baptist coming into a catholic church spewing his agenda and views. Should that be called a free speech violation when I kick him out because I am catholic? 

Ok - some will say that is a church/state thing maybe ? 

What if I have a radio station/program, I own it, do i have to let every one with their agenda on my radio station come on and spew it however they want or can I say NO? 

Is that censorship? 

im curious what you guys think ive been all over the place on this thing

Because if it's 100% yours you assume all liability and all profit. In this case you are shielded from liability BUT still retain all benefit. Something you HAD to have for your business to succeed. With this being the case. Why would you editorialise when you have no need too?

The closest parrallel l can think of is the anti trust exemption for major league sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...