Pulitzer Prize Winning Maus Censored By Tennessee School District 6 6

[sfcityduck]

On 2/1/2022 at 8:59 PM, paqart said:

Deplatforming is among the most cowardly and sinister tactics I've seen employed in recent years to silence opposition. 

Free speech is about the speaker, not the recipient.  All ideas are not entitled to be given equal weight by the viewers or listeners.  Just because you post something on a private businesses’ message platform does not mean that business is obligated to help you spread that message by keeping it up on their site.  If the message is abhorrent, false, stupid, defamatory, or traitorous it may well be taken down,   You can always find another corner of the internet on which to post.

[JJ-4]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:02 AM, Lord Gemini said:

Yup. Someone's been buying into the lies. Sorry, but when misinformation is being spread on a platform that costs millions of lives, the platform should seriously consider removing that nonsense.

First, where did you pull the millions of lives number come from?  I would argue that suppressing info is much more dangerous.

Second, who do you propose (and trust) gets the right to silence opinions?  "Fact checkers", that's a joke.  An AI program?  Humans right the code, and we can see how social media has widened the divide between people not made us come together, mainly due to the way the ad model incentivizes ratcheting up the rhetoric on both sides.  You want to give the government the right to censor and delete?  Possibly the worst idea of them all, as history will prove.  If you want to "remove that nonsense" please explain how.     

[Randall Dowling]

On 2/2/2022 at 9:49 AM, sfcityduck said:

Free speech is about the speaker, not the recipient.  All ideas are not entitled to be given equal weight by the viewers or listeners.  Just because you post something on a private businesses’ message platform does not mean that business is obligated to help you spread that message by keeping it up on their site.  If the message is abhorrent, false, stupid, defamatory, or traitorous it may well be taken down,   You can always find another corner of the internet on which to post.

Same thing is true for a shopping mall.  If you decide you want to start talking about something loudly that the management deems as bad for business, out you go.

In this country you have right to speech, not right to reach.  It was ever thus.  

[JJ-4]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:49 AM, sfcityduck said:

Free speech is about the speaker, not the recipient.  All ideas are not entitled to be given equal weight by the viewers or listeners.  Just because you post something on a private businesses’ message platform does not mean that business is obligated to help you spread that message by keeping it up on their site.  If the message is abhorrent, false, stupid, defamatory, or traitorous it may well be taken down,   You can always find another corner of the internet on which to post.

And when the people taking the conversation down are wrong, biased or bought?  It's great until the censors come for you (and then it's too late).

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

[Randall Dowling]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:35 PM, paqart said:

Right up until last year, I would have agreed with you. Not that there seem to be any limits on discussion of the subject you mentioned. Recent events make it clear that censorship can be fatal to life and liberty alike. 

I think you're drifting into territory that board management has made clear not to discuss and we don't want to get this thread locked.

Can I point out the irony though, that the same people complaining about deplatforming and free speech limitations are the ones purging books and education topics from schools?  I don't think it's quite as principled as you're seeing it.  

[JJ-4]

Can I point out the irony that the same people trying to de-platform and silence people are the ones push information as facts that have turned out to be completely false later. 

[Joshua33]

On 2/2/2022 at 7:02 AM, Lord Gemini said:

Yup. Someone's been buying into the lies. Sorry, but when misinformation is being spread on a platform that costs millions of lives, the platform should seriously consider removing that nonsense.

Proven false, scientifically. Next.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/2/2022 at 11:01 AM, JJ-4 said:

Can I point out the irony that the same people trying to de-platform and silence people are the ones push information as facts that have turned out to be completely false later. 

You can never be wrong if no one is able to tell you that you're wrong.

[sfcityduck]

On 2/2/2022 at 7:55 AM, JJ-4 said:

And when the people taking the conversation down are wrong, biased or bought?  It's great until the censors come for you (and then it's too late).

 

There is a big difference between government censorship, which is what free speech theory addresses (such as in the case of the Maus censorship here), and an action by private business.  If a private school or a home schooling parent wants to ban Maus no one will blink an eye.  Because that is THEIR right.  You seem a bit confused on this point.

[Lord Gemini]

On 2/2/2022 at 10:03 AM, Joshua33 said:

Proven false, scientifically. Next.

Seeing as I didn’t post anything to be proven or disproven, I’ll just dismiss your response.

[Randall Dowling]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:59 PM, paqart said:

Deplatforming is among the most cowardly and sinister tactics I've seen employed in recent years to silence opposition. It is at every level dishonorable. Any person who supports it contributes to the ruination of society. 

This is a bit hyperbolic at best and hysterical at worst.  I think you're not taking into account that the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon and we're only just discovering the consequences and implications of it.  Whether it's bad behavior by people on message boards, the ability and tendency for some individuals to self-radicalize, or the spread of disinformation, we're seeing some pretty negative consequences that have inflicted major damage to our society.  The first response has been to shut the sources of these things down to try to mitigate it.

From my point of view, the people that consume that stuff are like junkies looking for more outrage for the dopamine hit.  It's a bad look.  I'm not a supporter of censorship, but at least in the short term, something has to be done.  Right now, we have 2 large, distinct groups in the population living in very different conflicting, perceptual realities.  And that's a lot worse for society than the response.  

[Lord Gemini]

On 2/2/2022 at 9:50 AM, JJ-4 said:

First, where did you pull the millions of lives number come from?  I would argue that suppressing info is much more dangerous.

Second, who do you propose (and trust) gets the right to silence opinions?  "Fact checkers", that's a joke.  An AI program?  Humans right the code, and we can see how social media has widened the divide between people not made us come together, mainly due to the way the ad model incentivizes ratcheting up the rhetoric on both sides.  You want to give the government the right to censor and delete?  Possibly the worst idea of them all, as history will prove.  If you want to "remove that nonsense" please explain how.     

The government has done nothing of the sort. Stop being ridiculous.

[paqart]

On 2/2/2022 at 10:49 AM, sfcityduck said:

Free speech is about the speaker, not the recipient.  All ideas are not entitled to be given equal weight by the viewers or listeners.  Just because you post something on a private businesses’ message platform does not mean that business is obligated to help you spread that message by keeping it up on their site.  If the message is abhorrent, false, stupid, defamatory, or traitorous it may well be taken down,   You can always find another corner of the internet on which to post.

Definitions of these words, "abhorrent, false, stupid, defamatory, or traitorous" vary so much on certain subjects that they include polar opposites. For that reason, it isn't possible to know what you mean from what you wrote. Example, "traitorous": one group says that people who went to the Capitol rally last year on January 6th were traitorous. On the other side, the people responsible for arresting the protestors are described as traitors for setting up the protestors to be arrested (by encouraging them, removing no trespassing signs, opening doors, guiding them into the building, exhorting them to go in, plus the addition of Antifa prvovateurs).

[sfcityduck]

 

On 2/2/2022 at 8:12 AM, paqart said:

Definitions of these words, "abhorrent, false, stupid, defamatory, or traitorous" vary so much on certain subjects that they include polar opposites. For that reason, it isn't possible to know what you mean from what you wrote. Example, "traitorous": one group says that people who went to the Capitol rally last year on January 6th were traitorous. On the other side, the people responsible for arresting the protestors are described as traitors for setting up the protestors to be arrested (by encouraging them, removing no trespassing signs, opening doors, guiding them into the building, exhorting them to go in, plus the addition of Antifa prvovateurs).

Your nit pick does not work in this discussion. In the context in which I'm using those terms, they mean what the private business or individual who is taking down the message posted on their board thinks they mean.  For some businesses it will mean one thing, for others something else.  That is their right to decide.

[sfcityduck]

A lot of people get confused when talking about "rights."  When we talk about Constitutional rights, we are talking about rights vis a vis government actors.  We are not talking about rights versus private individuals or businesses.  

And, even as to rights against the government, they are not absolute.  For very good reasons, we recognize that every Constitutional right has an outer limit and that a compelling government interest can justify government suppression of a Constitutional right.  

Of course, I'm talking about the U.S. here. Most other countries do not have as robust protections for free speech as we have here.

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by sfcityduck

[JJ-4]

On 2/2/2022 at 9:10 AM, Lord Gemini said:

The government has done nothing of the sort. Stop being ridiculous.

You stop being ridiculous (see what I did there?)  Again, who decides who removes "that nonsense"?

[sfcityduck]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:23 AM, JJ-4 said:

You stop being ridiculous (see what I did there?)  Again, who decides who removes "that nonsense"?

For a private business, it is their choice.  They are private actors.  Constitutional rights only apply to state action.

Again, no one is going to bat an eye if Maus is banned by a private school.  I'm sure that it is banned by private schools.  But, that's THEIR right.  

Not sure why folks are so confused about what this thread is about.  It is about a government entity, a school board, censoring Maus.  It is not about a private actor, such as Twitter, taking down posts.

If we are going to talk politics, we should stick with comic-related politics, and if the topic is censorship we should have a very firm grasp on the reality of the scope of the U.S. Constitution.

Otherwise we are all going to learn that CGC has the right to take down our posts.

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by sfcityduck

[paqart]

On 2/2/2022 at 11:16 AM, sfcityduck said:

 

Your nit pick does not work in this discussion. In the context in which I'm using those terms, they mean what the private business or individual who is taking down the message posted on their board thinks they mean.  For some businesses it will mean one thing, for others something else.  That is their right to decide.

Not when they are functioning as agents for the government. Also, for the same reason a business is not allowed to turn away customers of a certain race or gender, business should not be allowed to utilize similarly discriminatory tests based on political ideology for platform access. For those who think that some perspectives are so awful that they must be squelched, remember that others likely feel the same way about you. 

[Lord Gemini]

On 2/2/2022 at 10:23 AM, JJ-4 said:

You stop being ridiculous (see what I did there?)  Again, who decides who removes "that nonsense"?

The platform, as is their right.

[sfcityduck]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:30 AM, paqart said:

Not when they are functioning as agents for the government. Also, for the same reason a business is not allowed to turn away customers of a certain race or gender, business should not be allowed to utilize similarly discriminatory tests based on political ideology for platform access. For those who think that some perspectives are so awful that they must be squelched, remember that others likely feel the same way about you. 

Are you an attorney?  Because the threshold to deem a private business or individual as a "state actor" is very high.  I don't think there is any reasonable case to be made that Twitter or Facebook etc. meet that threshold and are "state actors."  Certainly, no one has ever been able to make that case in court.  I don't think that anyone has even made a serious attempt.

The issue of businesses not being allowed to turn away customers of a certain race or gender is an entirely different issue with different considerations.  It is not legally analogous.  I could go on and on regarding this point, but it would take a deep dive into a bunch of different Constitutional law concepts that really don't belong on a thread devoted to discussing Maus.  Suffice it to say that a business' right to turn away customers is not unlimited because no right is absolute.  If you want to pass a law telling Twitter that it cannot take down viewpoints that it doesn't like on its message board, you are the one advocating a form of censorship.  Twitter will argue that such a law would violate its free speech rights to decide what speech it is willing to provide a platform to, which is true, and will argue that there is no compelling government interest would which justify that law since posters are free to make their own platforms or go to other platforms more sympathetic to their speech.  And Twitter would win.  

There's a place in the internet for everyone.  That some are more popular than others doesn't matter under a free speech analysis.  You don't have a right to access to the more popular platforms just because they are more popular. You just have a right to access to a platform.

Edited February 2, 2022 by sfcityduck