Lion of the Blogosphere

Survival of Democracy requires censoring of free speech!

Remember when liberals used to say the opposite? And this guy is a U.S. Senator.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 7, 2018 at EST pm

Posted in Technology

35 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. In France we had a total freedom of press in the 30ies and then after the war, we ve been implementing policies to limit free speech. And as the press is integrated into industries and interests, there is no more a « free » press . Only marginal extreme papers with tiny audience (except maybe extreme catholic groups) .

    Bruno

    August 7, 2018 at EST pm

  2. Look at Chris Murphy’s twitter banner.

    gothamette

    August 7, 2018 at EST pm

  3. I am not familiar with Infowars. Still, a simultaneous shut down by several companies on one day seems rather ominous to me. They’re conspiring with each other.

    Who’s next? Maybe Infowars was just the lowest hanging fruit.

    Frau Katze

    August 7, 2018 at EST pm

    • Infowars is headed up Alex Jones. He’s sort of a raving lunatic – picture Rush Limbaugh on a cocaine binge – very inflammatory. The real reason this happened was essentially that people were mad at Alex Jones. He’s not really worth you watching, but he does employ someone named Paul Joseph Watson, who has the same politics as Alex Jones, but is reasonable, articulate, and researches everything he puts out.

      Paul Joseph Watson dodged the purge. This is sort of like when Twitter was taking away blue check marks. The only real criteria for having the thing taken away was that some high ranking Twitter employee hated your guts. The big difference is that instead of loosing a silly digital merit badge, now the person who makes a random technocrat angry will have their bank refuse to transfer their funds.

      This is as crazy as if someone from my parent’s generation was interviewed on live TV at an anti-war protest, got home and found their power turned off, tried to call the power company, and found out that the phone company shut off their phone too because somebody who sat on the board of directors for both was also on the board of Lockheed Martin and didn’t like hippies.

      This is way too dystopian. Unless you’re Amish, you need some degree of cooperation from multiple giant corporations in order to live out your normal daily existence.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • I’ve heard of Paul Joseph Watson, although I don’t follow him regularly. Yes, this is nothing more than leftists shutting down anyone popular who would affect the upcoming elections.

        As a side note, having elections on a regular schedule might have seemed like a good idea at one time, but the net effect now is like there’s always an election coming soon.

        The Westminster model lets the ruling party call elections whenever they want. They can go no longer than five years. And if bill introduced by the ruling party fails to pass Parliament, an election must be called. Typically they try to pick opportune time. But the ruling party has total power if they’ve got an absolute majority. The monarch and House of Lords have zero power now. So there is a lot less gridlock.

        Frau Katze

        August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • “This is as crazy as if someone from my parent’s generation was interviewed on live TV at an anti-war protest, got home and found their power turned off, tried to call the power company, and found out that the phone company shut off their phone too because somebody who sat on the board of directors for both was also on the board of Lockheed Martin and didn’t like hippies.”

        That would have seemed crazy last year, but next year, who knows?

        Mike Street Station

        August 7, 2018 at EST pm

    • ” They’re conspiring with each other.”

      Jones is a conspiracy theorist.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      gothamette

      August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • Conspiracies are popular. Have you heard this one? According to the theory whites have superhuman contempt powers. These contempt powers are so strong that by simply holding low expectations about black academic performance whites can cause young blacks to perform poorly on tests!

        Better yet, this is an conspiracy taught in schools!

        Curle

        August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • There’s another conspiracy theory afloat but Lion is sick of hearing about it and frankly, so am I, so I’ll keep mum.

        gothamette

        August 8, 2018 at EST am

    • They’ve already targeted the lowest hanging fruit. Infowars is a huge escalation. Breitbart would be the next logical step, and Fox News after that.

      PerezHBD

      August 7, 2018 at EST pm

  4. the best explanation is dysgenics. arguing with people who want to restrict freedom of speech is pointless. they have low IQs.

    luke ford

    August 7, 2018 at EST pm

    • Ironically the leftists always say how stupid and low IQ the right is.

      They’re quite happy to discuss IQ if it’s insulting those who don’t agree with them (and the left has become so demented that someone who is centrist, sort of like a 19th century liberal, is now in their enemy).

      Frau Katze

      August 7, 2018 at EST pm

    • And yet the cabal of censors is very high IQ indeed. Poisonous snakes and all that, eh Luke?

      George Lesenby

      August 8, 2018 at EST am

  5. The whole free speech thing is retarded and shows conservatives have no idea how culture wars work. It requires a neutral show of good faith that leftists don’t, and will never have.

    Free speech is a delusion dreamt up by idealistic old white guys who think everyone is like them and will try to tolerate all speech in the name of fairness. Most people are NOT like this and are happy to censor you if they don’t like you. This is especially true for silly SJW women, who are very sensitive to disagreeable speech.

    If you believe in neutrality and your enemy doesn’t, you lose. Period. The right thing to do is to deplatform and persecute leftists before they do the same to you. Is it authoritarian? Sure. But authoritarianism is right when used on leftists.

    Jason Liu

    August 7, 2018 at EST pm

    • Free speech benefits those who are not in power. Right now, liberals are in power, so free speech benefits conservatives, so conservatives gotta get off their asses and start championing it with some laws while they still control Congress.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • My point is, if the west wasn’t so puritanical about free speech, liberals wouldn’t have this much power in the first place. You give em free speech, they’ll use it to oppress and suppress your speech.

        So I feel the same way they do about me: Leftist speech is bad and morally illegitimate and should be deplatformed.

        Jason Liu

        August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • @Jason Liu I must disagree. The SJWs are even worse in the other English-speaking countries, like Canada. They positively brag that “free speech is just an American thing, you know.”

        We have these grotesque Human Rights Tribunals.

        And a judge ruled a few years ago that blog owners are legally responsible for comments left on their site.

        And it’s easy to sue for libel in Canada. It’s far more difficult in the US.

        Don’t ever lose free speech.

        Frau Katze

        August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • Paul Ryan is still Speaker. Paul Ryan thinks Jonah Goldberg is an intellectual. There’ll be no free speech defense in the near future as long as chucks like Goldberg are free to speak.

        Curle

        August 7, 2018 at EST pm

      • Leftist speech is bad because it’s (by and large) untrue. The Left’s strangehold on media power should be broken, but there’s really no need to censor Leftist speech because it has no bearing on reality.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        August 8, 2018 at EST am

      • I agree with Jason on this. Perhaps it’s in our strategic interest to support free speech for the moment. But leftists certainly don’t support it in principle and probably never did. So it was foolish for us to have ever given them an even break. We should have shut them down permanently in the 50’s. Because that’s exactly what they intend to do to us.

        destructure

        August 8, 2018 at EST am

      • “But leftists certainly don’t support it in principle and probably never did.”

        Leftists really DID believe they supported it in principle, but it goes back to the time (1950s McCarthy hearings era) when free speech benefited leftists.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 8, 2018 at EST am

    • “Free speech is a delusion dreamt up by idealistic old white guys who think everyone is like them and will try to tolerate all speech in the name of fairness”

      That used to be a reasonable expectation and it worked pretty well for a long time.

      Now of course, that system has fallen apart.

      Mike Street Station

      August 7, 2018 at EST pm

    • What a nonsense argument. How does letting liberals burn flags keep someone like Pat Buchanan from giving their opinion? Your argument perfectly justifies progressives’ actions because it affirms their suspicion that if you were them you’d do the same thing. That’s exactly the kind of bullshit we need to get away from.

      Dain

      August 7, 2018 at EST pm

    • “The right thing to do is to deplatform and persecute leftists before they do the same to you.”

      Trouble is that there is little grassroots support for censorship on the right in the way that there is on the left. “Hate speech” is weaponized entirely against the right. (Can you think of any left wing “hate speech”?) Weaponizing a similar idea against the left would take at least two generations. The modern progressive war on free speech can be traced back to Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay on “Repressive Tolerance”, which was nearly 50 years ago. It would take at least an other 50 years to flip the valence. Waving the banner of Orthodoxy would rally few followers.

      “The whole free speech thing is retarded and shows conservatives have no idea how culture wars work. It requires a neutral show of good faith that leftists don’t, and will never have.”

      You don’t need to win over the left. You just need to convince a few independents.

      “Free Speech” is an idea that attracts a high caliber of paladins who are happy to go forth an slay dragons in its name.

      Someone might agree with you in principle, but disagree on tactics — at least in the short term.

      John D'oh

      August 8, 2018 at EST am

  6. “Our democracy” has become the most Orwellian phrase I’ve yet heard and that’s saying a lot!

    Sid

    August 7, 2018 at EST pm

  7. I’ve noticed that the left has begun using “democracy” simply to denote the kind of society they favor. They’ll call some liberal principle or action “democratic” if it was enacted by an elite, unelected few, while calling the will of a majority of the people “anti-democratic” or “a threat to democracy” if it results in some non-liberal principle or action.

    Hermes

    August 8, 2018 at EST am

  8. Lion, what is the fundamental difference in Facebook, Twitter, et al. removing speech/content/participation that they don’t like from their private platforms and you deleting comments (or choosing to ban a user) that you object to publishing on your blog?

    Jack

    August 9, 2018 at EST am

    • I’m not a monopoly, nor am I a publishing platform of people to do whatever they want with. I’m like a mini-newspaper or mini-magazine, and we have always had the right to choose what letters to the editor to publish and which to not.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 9, 2018 at EST am

      • This is not true. Even corner donut shop is a monopoly. You are the monopoly, unless you can point to the blog with the same name, same content, and same commenters.

        My 2¢

        August 9, 2018 at EST pm

      • Independently owned donut shots are NOT monopolies. They are the very essence of non-monopolistic free market competition, well at least nearly as close as we get in today’s economy.

        And as far as blogs go, there are literally hundreds of millions of blogs: http://mediakix.com/2017/09/how-many-blogs-are-there-in-the-world/#gs.iclLkpQ

        However, there are only a small number of blogging platforms, only a single search engine that the vast majority use to find blogs (Google) and only four major social media sites: YouTube, FaceBook, Instagram and Twitter, two of which are both owned by Facebook, and then Google owns YouTube and also controls who finds what because of their search engine.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 9, 2018 at EST pm

  9. Facebook, Google, etc aren’t platforms for people to do “whatever they want” either. You are constrained by their lengthy and restrictive rules that you agree to before utilizing them. And the fact that you are free to independently publish your verboten thoughts on this blog means they do you not have a true monopoly. They just have the biggest tent in the public square. That is the internet. They make money there, ergo they decide what happens there. There really isn’t anything to argue.

    As an example, here’s a choice (i.e. Insane) quote from the likes of Jones that I doubt you’d have a problem with the monopolistic platforms censoring:

    [Anti-Semitic quote deleted]

    Jack

    August 9, 2018 at EST am

    • Wrong you are, Anti-Semites have a right to free speech, but not a right to hijack the comments at this blog because this is not a platform for anyone to publish whatever they want, nor do I have any monopolistic power at all.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 9, 2018 at EST am

      • Why does Facebook have to allow them?

        Jack

        August 9, 2018 at EST am

      • Facebook is a monopoly and like a public square and not a newspaper or magazine.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 9, 2018 at EST am

      • You’re really stretching here. Facebook does indeed occupy a “public square” type of space but that is not what they are. Our society has collectively decided that such public spheres can be privatized and made for-profit, and as such their content and policies are up to the very whim of its owners. You could agitate for an open, publically-funded communication platform where your speech cannot be infringed but you’re not, you’re just trying to retroactively apply a public value upon a private company who was willing to spend what it takes to make themselves the indepspensible (and wildly profitable) player in the arena. Speech on their platforms is not free, therefore they control it.

        Jack

        August 9, 2018 at EST pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: