Florida Government censors discussion of queerness in schools

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The censorship here is real cencorship. The "censorship" Joe Rogan and the like complains about is the comic below.

[McAvoy]

...and when they decide not to allow things to be said, it's censorship. Private entities can censor. I didn't say a thing about "freedom of speech".

They can do whatever they want. You can call it censorship if it makes you feel better. But those entities are still private. They are not government entities no matter how many people use it even for official government use.

[Mickey_Rat15]

...and when they decide not to allow things to be said, it's censorship. Private entities can censor. I didn't say a thing about "freedom of speech".

They can do whatever they want. You can call it censorship if it makes you feel better. But those entities are still private. They are not government entities no matter how many people use it even for official government use.

Just to point out, Star Trek: TOS has a lot of stories about dealing with the network censors. The networks were all and remains private compaines. The semantic distinction is not really accurate.

[CmdrKing]

They can do whatever they want. You can call it censorship if it makes you feel better. But those entities are still private. They are not government entities no matter how many people use it even for official government use.

There’s even a reasonable discussion to be had there: given the sheer size and influence of social media platforms, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they should be subject to the same scrutiny as the government in a first amendment context.

But for now, it doesn’t work that way and, at least at the moment, they could quite successfully argue that there’s enough competitors that they should not be held to that standard. It’s possible enough to get banned on Facebook, clean up your act, and get the same mileage on Twitter, that sort of thing.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

They can do whatever they want. You can call it censorship if it makes you feel better. But those entities are still private. They are not government entities no matter how many people use it even for official government use.

There’s even a reasonable discussion to be had there: given the sheer size and influence of social media platforms, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they should be subject to the same scrutiny as the government in a first amendment context.

Kind of interesting to think about the direct connotations of free speech permission by the government and apply that as an applied protective barrier to individuals on the interwebz.

[Draco Dracul]

...and when they decide not to allow things to be said, it's censorship. Private entities can censor. I didn't say a thing about "freedom of speech".

They can do whatever they want. You can call it censorship if it makes you feel better. But those entities are still private. They are not government entities no matter how many people use it even for official government use.

Just to point out, Star Trek: TOS has a lot of stories about dealing with the network censors. The networks were all and remains private compaines. The semantic distinction is not really accurate.

Well yeah because in real life censorship is almost always used on the left.

[McAvoy]

They can do whatever they want. You can call it censorship if it makes you feel better. But those entities are still private. They are not government entities no matter how many people use it even for official government use.

There’s even a reasonable discussion to be had there: given the sheer size and influence of social media platforms, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they should be subject to the same scrutiny as the government in a first amendment context.

Kind of interesting to think about the direct connotations of free speech permission by the government and apply that as an applied protective barrier to individuals on the interwebz.

I think it is being discussed right now where a platform as wide spread as Facebook or Twitter is and their rights as a private company versus the service they provide. Censorship, fact checking etc.

[Frustration]

There’s even a reasonable discussion to be had there: given the sheer size and influence of social media platforms, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they should be subject to the same scrutiny as the government in a first amendment context.

Yes, it is. The First Amendment applies to government, and no other entity.

If you want to pass laws mandating what media companies must permit or must forbid, you can attempt to do so. If you want to amend the Constitution to accomplish that, you may try. But you may not cite the First Amendment in order to justify doing so.