Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
More importantly, what that statement does instead is to confirm that they believe that as a result of their ability to promote an opinion through their platform, they intend to be careful about not doing so.


Could you explain to me what is practical difference between "careful not to promote" and outright censorship?


Well, I am of the opinion that censorship is an action only the government, not private citizens or organizations, can take, because my definition of censorship is the inability to exercise speech. Unlike the government, private organizations don't have total control over all of an individual's ability to exercise speech. So doing anything as a private organization is by definition not censorship.


I fundamentally disagree with your application of definitions. You are technically correct in context of First Amendment, but protection from the government censorship is only one aspect of overall freedom of speech. Inability to exercise speech can come from other areas, like getting deplatformed or threat of losing ability to make living. More so, with most of the speech moving to digital format you have an issue with corporations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook having the power to effectively silence you. In turn, these corporations can be pressured into censorship.

What is the point of having theoretical free speech rights if it can't be exercised unless you are independently wealthy and powerful? We are few short years away from technology ensuring the end of anonymity where anyone could be potentially discovered and made an example of by a digital mob. The same technology also ensures that nothing that was ever said will be forgotten. We already have numerous cases (e.g. Damore) of innocent people getting dragged by an online mob with the explicit intent to silence them. Getting someone fired over speech is not any less damaging than assaulting them with a bike lock at a political rally. Both are done with explicit intent to chill speech.

Do you think the path we take to arrive to illiberal society devoid of free speech somehow going to matter? Do you expect it to be less oppressive if it is multinational corporations or social justice groups and not the government censorship that gets us there? Tyranny of government is only one type of tyranny.

In case of Ghomeshi the desirable outcome is to dismiss or mock him, not to attempt to take his voice away. Whatever benefits of deplatforming Ghomeshi are, the can't possibly outweigh grievous harm of enabling and propagating censorship.


Originally Posted by rhaikh
As a for profit organization, it's within their right (and arguably their obligation in case of regulated public companies) to fire someone because of sufficient market pressure, just as it would be within their right to begin promoting some opposing ideology or to demand increased impartiality.


Just to clarify, I did not say it was illegal to fire the editor, simply that it was objectionable action. As in, such firing goes against my core values. More so, publications and journalists should be held to a higher standard than 'whatever makes profit' in regards to speech.

[Linked Image]