On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:59 PM, Cristóbal wrote:
Somehow, these decries of digital gulags and unfair muzzling of ideas sound kind of specious.-
It's more than "kind of" specious. I wrote the following several years ago, when a cycle of inanity about censorship by one platform or another was going on and there were the usual stupid (and they are stupid to anyone who knows history and the law) cries of "freedom of speech!"
Suppression of expression by the government is censorship.
Suppression of expression by a publisher or broadcaster over what it disseminates is editorial oversight.
Suppression of expression of the wrong thing by oneself is discretion, restraint, and good manners.
Suppression of expression of children by their parents is necessary socialization and good parenting.
~ Brian Vogel
The Constitution is a document that defines the relationship between the government and the people, and the powers it can and cannot exercise. It is, intentionally, silent about what any private individual or entity may or may not choose to do with regard to expression or prohibiting/suppressing same. And anyone who doesn't see Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc., as a publisher that can and should have absolute control over what they will, or will not, permit for dissemination by their platforms is engaging in willful ignorance. Those venues are not any given member's personal soapbox.
Let's not even get into the cries that speech having unwanted consequences because others put their feet down being an infringement on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has not, and never will, mean freedom from the logical (or, sometimes, illogical but predictable) consequences of having said something.
Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 20H2, Build 19042
One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.
~ André Gide