Socialists generally believe for-profit anything is fundamentally awful, and at best, tainted. That's not the issue we're talking about here. So these fundamentally dogshit entities propagating moral or social panics is just par for the freaking course.
Not OP but I think the thesis is that censorship by private entities isn't a first amendment issue because the constitution only applies to state actors. Similarly the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal test that only applies to the state, because of the power imbalance between individuals and the state. By comparison, in civil trials, the standard is "balance of probabilities".
No and that wasn't the point either. If I read the post correctly, OP is saying that "innocent before proven guilty" is a standard that only applies to the state. He then mentioned the first amendment as another commonly misinterpreted standard that only applies to the state. You have skipped entirely past the primary point, and latched on to the free speech example for some reason.
EDIT: also I see that OP has already replied to you, so go argue with him instead lol
My point is that the first amendment is very clear in only protecting speech from the government and anyone who is citing it in relation to media censorship clearly hasn't read the amendment.
My views on media censorship are to expect it. I dislike it when causes and people I support are censored, but I don't particularly subscribe to the liberal notion that free speech must be protected for anyone from everyone else at all costs. Media is a tool of class war and it should be treated as such.
wait so you, presumably a socialist, don’t consider censorship by media companies to matter?
Socialists generally believe for-profit anything is fundamentally awful, and at best, tainted. That's not the issue we're talking about here. So these fundamentally dogshit entities propagating moral or social panics is just par for the freaking course.
It really looks like the thesis of that post is that censorship by private entities doesn’t count. Is there a different thesis?
Not OP but I think the thesis is that censorship by private entities isn't a first amendment issue because the constitution only applies to state actors. Similarly the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal test that only applies to the state, because of the power imbalance between individuals and the state. By comparison, in civil trials, the standard is "balance of probabilities".
okey dokey. do we care about the constitution as a source of right/wrong?
No and that wasn't the point either. If I read the post correctly, OP is saying that "innocent before proven guilty" is a standard that only applies to the state. He then mentioned the first amendment as another commonly misinterpreted standard that only applies to the state. You have skipped entirely past the primary point, and latched on to the free speech example for some reason.
EDIT: also I see that OP has already replied to you, so go argue with him instead lol
I'd say it's along the lines of "it's kind of pointless to discuss how good/bad the baby is cause it's definitely going out with the bathwater"
Ah I see what you're saying. I'm interested what OP says, I dunno.
My point is that the first amendment is very clear in only protecting speech from the government and anyone who is citing it in relation to media censorship clearly hasn't read the amendment.
My views on media censorship are to expect it. I dislike it when causes and people I support are censored, but I don't particularly subscribe to the liberal notion that free speech must be protected for anyone from everyone else at all costs. Media is a tool of class war and it should be treated as such.