Freedom of Speech - only for left wingers?

[Jon]

How is forcing a company to employ someone they do not want to employ right? If they fired him because of outside pressure, then they are feckless pieces of s*** just like the Republicans who stay out of the fray because they're afraid of being called names.

I am not saying it is not their right, or not legal. What I am saying is he has been censored by the act of firing. Lets not conflate the rights of a company to fire and whether someone has been censored or not.

Lets say it nice and simple: He had views X. They didn't like his views X. They terminated his contract so he could not say X on their radio show. He was therefore censored.

 

[Minty]

They were a private institution that suppressed his public communication because they considered his material objectionable.

Actually it's not his public communication. It's actually the broadcasters, and they would be liable if he said anything that contravened any libel or other defamatory laws.
They hired him because he is a controversial character, and may have been good for ratings. Apparently not so much now.

He can still publically say what he wants anywhere he likes.
Hopefully, nobody will be listening.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you about the left-wing bias, I actually agree with you. Apparently Churchills statues are now being discussed as not very politically correct...
The snowflake lefty liberal tree huggers are taking over for sure.

Now where did I park my V8 RangeRover...

 

[Deleted member 147267]

You're not going to change my mind, I'm afraid. Not because I'm inflexible but because we don't see it the same way. I will counter that by 'forcibly' revoking the use of their platform they did not suppress his right to say whatever he wants. He can say whatever he wants - elsewhere. Thus he has the freedom to express his views. The only way I'll agree that he was censored is that
a) they redacted parts of his written comments or bleeped out audio and allowed the rest to be published (as in the inmate example) or
b) he is prevented from expressing those comments in any form and in every place
As soon as I finish my lunch here I'm off to work!

 

[Isaac]

Jon this is an interesting question. I guess I would feel it helpful to make distinctions between censorship or discrimination, vs. right & wrong, vs. legal and not legal.

I had read that story too, with sadness. Another person getting canned for not being politically correct and for not unequivocally supporting BLM.

For the "right and wrong", as well as legal and not legal, I would say Well....it's their business. They have the legal and even the moral right to only hire people whose views they agree with. There is nothing illegal (I don't think) with an organization such as that to deliberately employ only those who agree with their views, unless it's their religion. I admit I'm not able to say whether another country might have a law restricting this liberty.
Do they have the legal right to censor? I guess they do. Morally? Well that's where it gets muddy for me.

The current climate that is happening, where every person must agree with everything that BLM believes and says, or risk personal and professional condemnation and persecution, and all of the knee-jerk overreactions going on, is something that I deeply disagree with. And it is the sole reason why, approximately 2 weeks ago, for the first time ever, I changed my mind and decided I am voting for Trump in the next election. There are a lot of issues where I part ways with Trump, but I have decided unfortunately they are over-ruled for me by this. This decision was huge for me.

While the station may have had the legal and moral right to fire him because they can choose to hire those whose views they agree with, it's very objectionable behavior and represents a much larger thing happening all across the US and the world right now. If someone doesn't stand up to them, the more liberal voices of over-the-top reactions to all of this will be putting in place horribly unfair amounts of persecution and punishment to anyone who even reasonably disagrees, and my vote is with Trump because he will stand with the rest of us, while still (I believe) trying to put in place some positive change.

Yes, it's censorship and discrimination. The legal, but absolutely reprehensible, kind. Note that in this statement I am not focusing quite as much on Nigel's case itself, because his statements were much more extreme than I would really even agree with, but I am focusing on the broader rapidly building trend that it represents.

 

[Jon]

How is it not his public communication? Farage was talking on a show on the ITV TV channel, not LBC from where he was fired. So are you saying the broadcasters were censoring a TV channel? That makes no sense. So the libel argument is not relevant.

The Churchill statue desecration is disgusting.

 

[Jon]

@Micron

People don't like to change their minds in a public forum because they want to save face, even if the evidence is overwhelming.

b) he is prevented from expressing those comments in any form and in every place

I understand what you mean by censorship now. It has to be everywhere. So now let me counter that. The prisoner example can say whatever he said in the letter to his inmates. Or via phone calls. Or to their visitors. So how is your example of an inmate a case of censorship?

Give me an example of censorship in the real world that does prevent someone saying it else where or via another means. You can have something legally censored, but it doesn't stop it. And not all censorship is via legal means.

Lets take the Prime Minister debates in the UK. If the BBC said only Boris Johnson could participate in the debate with say the Green Party, but they excluded Corbyn, is that not a case of censorship?

 

[Jon]

@pisorsisaac@gmail.co I am only throwing in the word "discrimination" to use the lefts own ideological weapons against themselves. They are supposedly vehemently opposed to discrimination of any kind, unless of course your views disagree with theirs. So, "discrimination" is banned, unless its discrimination by them against you. Consequently, you get banned from universities from giving a speech. Nigel gets banned from his own radio show.

 

[Isaac]

They are supposedly vehemently opposed to discrimination of any kind, unless of course your views disagree with theirs. So, "discrimination" is banned, unless its discrimination by them against you.

Yes, I get it ... And I believe the same problem is occurring with the politically correct definition of the term racism.
Frankly, the word has become so useless. That's one thing I bet a lot of people might agree with, people of all colors. It has become useless because it means whatever the person using it wants it to mean in the moment. Is this racist, is that racist, am I racist, is everyone inherently racist, is anything that offends you racist, how about anything that offends me, can anyone be racist or only certain demographics, heck what even is our goal after all, to try to stamp out all personal racism or only systemic racism, etc. etc. etc. and on and on.

My view is that the government's job is primarily to concern themselves with equal opportunity. Not equal results. Trying to control results erases earning, merit, work, choice and decision. They should concern themselves with equal protection and equal opportunity. Not special opportunity, equal opportunity. Stick to the basics of what we ought to expect of government, and stop trying to legislate viewpoints.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Nigel Farage, love that guy. I could listen to him all day!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yes, I get it ... And I believe the same problem is occurring with the politically correct definition of the term racism.
Frankly, the word has become so useless.

Then you will love this.

Merriam-Webster is revising its entry on racism after a recent college graduate in Missouri, inspired by the protests and debates about what it means to be racist, urged editors to make changes.

Full story here.

 

[Isaac]

Yes, I had read that ... the word had to be redefined so that it included Every Way the System Is Not Working For Me.

And of course, Merriam-Webster was well advised to agree to that one. Failing that, they might have ended up in charred remains.

 

[Pat Hartman]

They are not suppressing his right to speak unless they are the only platform in town. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have a monopoly and so when they shut someone down, they ARE censoring them and the feckless Republicans will not even remove their free pass to not be sued.

 

[Pat Hartman]

OK, that's it. I'm burning a book as soon as I locate my Funk and Wagnalls.

 

[Jon]

Ok, it seems some peoples distinction of censorship is the degree to which a voice is suppressed. A monopoly doesn't mean there are not other channels to get your message out. If someone was banned from Facebook, does that mean they were not censored because they can still do their Twitter thing?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Devils advocate. Lets say the cancel culture is successful at closing down conservative speech like FOX or NewsMax then what twitter? This should frighten Liberals. In fact doesn't Bill Maher rail against it.

 

[Pat Hartman]

If someone was banned from Facebook, does that mean they were not censored because they can still do their Twitter thing?

And how would their following find them on Twitter? They would be starting again from ground zero. Facebook and Twitter and Google, etc are PROTECTED in the US because they claim to be simply publishers. That means, they claim to have NO editorial control. However, they exercise editorial control every time they block a Conservative voice. The Democrats think of that as blocking hate speech because THEY hate it, not because an objective person would consider it hateful. All the while, the Republicans push their heads deeper in the sand and their a**** wave in the breeze.

BTW, I have been permanently banned from Facebook and have no way to get a human to intervene to fix the problem and that was after a SINGLE post.

 

[Jon]

And how would their following find them on Twitter?

Search function? Or if you prefer, if they were banned from Twitter, but not Facebook, is that therefore not censorship because they have Facebook?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Search function? I don't have a twitter account but please tell me how you find a specific person without knowing their handle?

 

[Jon]

What about the alternative as I said. If you were banned on Twitter and so could go to Facebook. If Twitter is a monopoly, there is another outlet. So is that censorship or not?

 

[isladogs]

BTW, I have been permanently banned from Facebook and have no way to get a human to intervene to fix the problem and that was after a SINGLE post.

OK Pat.
I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote in that post that got you banned. Perhaps you would be willing to repeat the same post here