Is it Ironic For the Press to Shut Down Free Speech? (companies, vote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are restricting free speech, if they won't publish or allow view points that doesn't bode well with their whims, and profitability from the business masquerading as "Press".
No, they're not. People still have the right to say whatever they like. Free speech does not include the mandate to have that speech published by someone else. That decision is left to the press and is their right.
No, they're not. People still have the right to say whatever they like. Free speech does not include the mandate to have that speech published by someone else. That decision is left to the press and is their right.
Well, I understand that. Theses "presses" are businesses in disguise to begin with. They have business goals. That, in fact, proves the irony, that they are not into respecting anybody else's right to free speech.
Well, I understand that. Theses "presses" are businesses in disguise to begin with. They have business goals. That, in fact, proves the irony, that they are not into respecting anybody else's right to free speech.
They are indeed businesses; I agree. I'm not sure of their stance on other people's free speech, but they are certainly willing to use their microphone to speak louder.
They are indeed businesses; I agree. I'm not sure of their stance on other people's free speech, but they are certainly willing to use their microphone to speak louder.
But, I'm sure of it when efforts are put in place to censor opposing point of view, that is not very good for the business. Sort of like Yelp where people assume and go for "reviews". Dig deeper and you'll find that reviews are cherry picked (if a restaurant doesn't pay a fee to Yelp, most good reviews are filtered out... and vice versa for restaurants that do). Yelp is not promoting free speech, it is promoting its business model by controlling speech it represents.
They are restricting free speech, if they won't publish or allow view points that doesn't bode well with their whims, and profitability from the business masquerading as "Press".
Why is it their obligation to publish private individual's viewpoints? They are a business, like it or not. Evidently the comments they were getting were inappropriate, so they shut down the comments section for that video/article. The individuals who wanted to express their viewpoint aren't unable to express it because a website is shut down. They can find another website, if they so desire. They can purchase space from the business to have their viewpoint showcased. If the individuals who wanted to express their opinions were rendered unable to express those opinions, then it would be a restriction of free speech. But private businesses aren't obligated to provide resources to individuals to exercise their freedom of speech. Even this forum shuts down threads. They aren't restricting free speech when they do so. Because individuals can and do start new threads, and go to competing forums, and write their newspapers, and so on.
Why is it their obligation to publish private individual's viewpoints? They are a business, like it or not. Evidently the comments they were getting were inappropriate, so they shut down the comments section for that video/article. The individuals who wanted to express their viewpoint aren't unable to express it because a website is shut down. They can find another website, if they so desire. They can purchase space from the business to have their viewpoint showcased. If the individuals who wanted to express their opinions were rendered unable to express those opinions, then it would be a restriction of free speech. But private businesses aren't obligated to provide resources to individuals to exercise their freedom of speech. Even this forum shuts down threads. They aren't restricting free speech when they do so. Because individuals can and do start new threads, and go to competing forums, and write their newspapers, and so on.
I didn't say they were obligated to publish opposing view points. But if they avoid opposing view points, not conducive to their business model, is about controlled speech. I'm simply calling out the hypocrisy.
I didn't say they were obligated to publish opposing view points. But if they avoid opposing view points, not conducive to their business model, is about controlled speech. I'm simply calling out the hypocrisy.
Okay. Can you explain why you think a private business controlling its published content is hypocritical?
The two situations are not equivalent or really that similar so there is no evidence of hypocrisy.
Which two situations are you speaking of? Be specific, how it isn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
