Censorship or a community exercising good judgment ?
12 responses | 0 likes
Started by mcfarmer - July 18, 2021, 9:43 a.m.

These poor folks have been trying to keep the spotlight on themselves, and off the problems they face.

What say you ? Is this censorship ?


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/matt-gaetz-marjorie-taylor-greene-america-first-california-rally_n_60f34e6be4b01f11895a3278?ncid=APPLENEWS00001


From the article, since it isn’t just a tweet and takes longer than a few seconds to read :

“As a city we respect free speech, but also have a duty to call out speech that does not reflect our city and its values,” Lyster noted.”


“Managers of the Pacific Hills Banquet and Event Center in Laguna Hills in Orange County dropped the rally a week ago once they learned of the nature of the event.

“As soon as we found out who the speakers were, we immediately canceled it,” said manager Javad Mirtavoosi.

“We just want to stay clear of that,” he added, without elaborating.”


“The rally was next scheduled at the Riverside Convention Center, but managers there then informed local officials on Friday that the event at the city-owned venue would not take place after it was widely condemned by residents.”


For me the last quote presents a problem. We all recognize that free speech doesn’t apply to non-governmental entities, even though those among us wish to commandeer private enterprise to serve our purposes.

The last one was a city owned venue.

So is their alternative to build their own venue ?

I‘ll save some time for a few of us and just get this out of the way:

California liberals=bad. There, that pithy response is out of the way.



Comments
By mcfarm - July 18, 2021, 10:18 a.m.
Like Reply

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/3-texas-house-democrats-test-positive-for-covid-19-after-fleeing-to-dc_3906290.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-07-17-3&mktids=e6d4dcba006c71cf3da91db5cf785745&est=3vCzEmgUK%2F7vVkMy6Bm8vmZo4tWdeaz%2BWnzLMyCWerQMHPawkGRzOzE1rtFIhfFY

we only had hoped that Cal libs equaled bad and could be controlled. But read the link, they have not only spread their disease to Texas but shirked their duties, fled the state, shunned the orders to wear masks but now have helped spread covid or a variant. Not that high priced pols would ever order the sheep to do something they would be given passes for not doing. Makes one damn proud to have such strong convictions.

By mcfarmer - July 18, 2021, 10:35 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks for that insightful addition to the conversation.

By mcfarm - July 18, 2021, 10:51 a.m.
Like Reply

Imagine that, a lib asks a question, gets a response, does not like it because its true. Then has the audacity to critcize.

By cutworm - July 18, 2021, 11:39 a.m.
Like Reply

As you noted

“As a city we respect free speech, but also have a duty to call out speech that does not reflect our city and its values,” Lyster noted.”

“As soon as we found out who the speakers were, we immediately canceled it,” said manager Javad Mirtavoosi.

“We just want to stay clear of that,” he added, without elaborating.”

Let's see:

cen·sorship

/ˈsensərSHip

noun


the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
"the regulation imposes censorship on all media

Ya I think it fits the definition But 

Can a private entity censor what is happening in their building? I would say yes as they have free speech. 

But Can a utility with section 230 protection censor?

 no I don't think so as 

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act | Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org)

But I digress a little there.

Can the city censor based on ," a duty to call out speech that does not reflect our city and its values" No I don't think so

By TimNew - July 18, 2021, 12:09 p.m.
Like Reply

Using the city's logic that the orignal poster apparently endorses, I think we'd be execising good judgement if we were to start censoring Maxine Waters and Bernie Sanders and probably Biden while we're at it.   

Individuals have every right to listen to them.   If no one does,  then the city's "calamity" resolves itself.

You cannot outlaw opinion or it's expression in a free country.

By mcfarmer - July 18, 2021, 2:14 p.m.
Like Reply

Tim, what about this gives you that idea ?


For me the last quote presents a problem. We all recognize that free speech doesn’t apply to non-governmental entities, even though those among us wish to commandeer private enterprise to serve our purposes.

The last one was a city owned venue.

Seriously, what gives you that idea ?

By metmike - July 18, 2021, 2:53 p.m.
Like Reply

What's interesting about decisions like this is they often backfire more often than not.

If this event had been allowed to take place with no fanfare, we likely would not have heard much about it.


However, the cancelling and censoring  of the event  has resulted in a response that is 100 times more powerful........about those cancelling the event and it elevates the message in a way that could never happen in the absence of the cancellation.



By mcfarmer - July 18, 2021, 2:58 p.m.
Like Reply

“What's interesting about decisions like this is they often backfire more often than not.”


Mike, that is true, however it does illustrate the widespread disgust folks have for these characters.

By TimNew - July 19, 2021, 6:46 a.m.
Like Reply

Not sure I understand your question McFarmer.

What gives me the idea that government officials are banning the speech of "certain people"?   The article you linked.

I realize that there are people who are not only comfortable, but prefer the idea of having someone smarter tell them what to do and see and hear.   You've demonstrated on several occasions that you are firmly planted among them.

But there is a large segment of the population that still prefers to make the majority of their lives decisions themselves.  We'll listen to advice,  but we'll still make our own decisions.   I for one would rather make my own mistakes than have the government make them for everyone.


And once again,   in a free society,  opinion and ideas are not banned,


By WxFollower - July 19, 2021, 7:13 a.m.
Like Reply

Tim,

 So, on that note as a GA resident, would you have liked to make your own decision regarding the election (as in your vote counting) or would you instead prefer the Federal Govt (Trump) make your decision as in his attempt to overturn the 2020 POTUS election results in GA? Remember the phone call to the GA Sec of State? Because that’s certainly where Trump and a good portion of the GOP were and still are attempting to go. True conservatives should be incensed right now just like true conservative Liz Cheney is.

By mcfarmer - July 19, 2021, 7:51 a.m.
Like Reply

Maybe if I keep asking it it will get an answer.


“Tim, what about this gives you that idea ?


For me the last quote presents a problem. We all recognize that free speech doesn’t apply to non-governmental entities, even though those among us wish to commandeer private enterprise to serve our purposes.

The last one was a city owned venue.

Seriously, what gives you that idea ?”


Maybe if I put it in bold you wont be able to ignore it.

At some point folks will just quit asking if specific questions are ignored and some vaguely related diatribe is given instead. 

By TimNew - July 19, 2021, 9:13 a.m.
Like Reply

McFarmer,    my impression is that overall,  you approve of the actions as is indicated in your heading "Good Judgment".  and your comment of "widespread disgust".  I can't possibly even entertain the idea that censorship could ever be considered "good judgment" even if I vehemently disagree with the speaker..   Your second thought comments do not really change that impression, as I have seen you endorse similar actions.  My apologies if I misjudge you.


WX,   I think many of Trump's  actions were over the top and unacceptable.. I have said that here many times. But I insist that every legal vote be counted and illegal ones discarded, and particularly here in Fulton County, Ga, I have serious doubts that was the case. Further,  I sincerely doubt that Ga is unique.  I have every reason to think Dems would take advantage of the many vulnerabilities that were identified.