That’s their right of…wait for it…free speech to not publish what they dont want.
So, journalists media outlets shouldn’t be allowed to not review or critique it?
I think you entirely misunderstand the whole free speech thing.
Murdering somebody is taking away the victim’s right to life. Getting arrested for saying something is a violation of your right of free speech. A media outlet not publishing your garbage is NOT a violation of rights. It is an expression of their rights of free speech. Just like you telling your friends not to buy from said company is YOUR expression of free speech.
Apparently the ACLU does too:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.
Private censorship is that person or goup’s expression of free speech.
Greenwald is a nut who gives rhetorical aid and comfort to white nationalists like Tucker Carlson. Private organizations are allowed to choose what to publish or allow on their platforms and what not to. They have the freedom of speech to decide this.
If Facebook disallowed criticism of Republicans, I wouldn’t use Facebook. The free market would undoubtedly allow many alternatives, one or more of which would be successful, and I could use those.
This is just more whiny nonsense from Greenwald and others who hate liberals and progressives.
No, they should choose to publish reviews of relevant books because that’s their job.
Here’s the next bit from the ACLU website:
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Private censorship is legal but that doesn’t mean it’s good or that no one can oppose it. It’s people supporting it that allows it to happen.
So stop supporting which ever media outlets you have these issues with. Done and done.
Boycotts are a tool, and like any tool, can be used for good or ill.
If they’re not allowed not to then “choose” really does not apply, does it?
I also think people should not commit adultery. That doesn’t mean I’m calling for a law against it. Is this distinction really so hard to understand?
We understand just fine. @snfaulkner is just pointing out how freedom of speech works. Those companies have the freedom to choose what they say–including whether they review something. And the author of the book has the freedom to try and get someone else to review it.
What no one has the right to do is take away the freedom of speech of those who choose not to review it. No one has the right to force someone to sell something they don’t want to sell. So much of the outcry about freedom of speech these days is about taking it away from people because you don’t like the results.
No one is entitled to a platform. No one is entitled to an audience. Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want, and people have a choice whether to listen. People have a choice whether to help you spread your idea or not.
This is how freedom of speech works. It’s never, ever been “everyone is required to listen to everyone else.” Throughout history there have been people who wanted to get their book published and sold in stores, but were unable to convince people to do so.
It’s all a deceptive tactic by those who can’t convince others to publish them. It’s no different than if I claimed my freedom of speech was infringed upon because Amazon refuses to publish my autobiography, or that you refuse to publish it on your blog.
The ACLU has it right. They are upholding freedom of speech. They have not changed in this regard. It’s just that certain people have decided to try and redefine the term to be “You should have to do say whatever I want you to say.”
And that’s without getting into how misleading this whole thing always is: it’s always people complaining that conservatives are being banned. Yet you can trivially find tons of conservative people making conservative statements on these platforms. You can find conservative books on Amazon. Facebook and Twitter are full of conservatives. And reviewers review conservative books all the time.
The issue clearly is NOT conservatism. These people just pretend that it is to get people riled up. They know that “freedom of speech” is an emotional term they can use. The real issue is always some agreed upon terms that they are violating.
Why does this book deserve reviews? Are you saying all books do? My novel didn’t get a review in any prominent newspapers. Did it deserve it? Does the latest racist screed from some prominent white nationalist deserve a review in a prominent outlet?
If you think all books deserve reviews, then make that case (though it would be a dumb case). If you think some books do, and some books don’t, then make the case why this particular book deserves this review. But you’re not making any coherent case – just a vague criticism of “private censorship”, also known as outlets not being infinite in size and resources and having to choose what to include.
No, it’s just clear that it’s a bait and switch, since your OP is about the ACLU not doing their job, saying they no longer support freedom of speech. The ACLU only defends the law, so you clearly were talking about the law.
That said, your argument fails without the law. You are advocating that certain companies should not have the choice in what they say. You are advocating against freedom of speech for Amazon, Facebook, and so on.
If you genuinely believe what you say, then prove it. Take my post and all the other posts you disagree with, and go publish it somewhere online–your Facebook, Twitter, whatever. By your logic, if you don’t help spread our ideas, you are abridging our freedom of speech.
Are they, law or no law, free to not publish things that they do not want to publish or not?
You have a right to be heard, amirite?
You have a right to say what you wanna say, and they shouldn’t be allowed to not spread your message, amirite?
No; you don’t. That’s entitlement talking there.
Did anyone replying here read the article? Anyone?
If this thread requires one read more than the OP then it, hehe, shouldn’t have been published!
I did. So what? What is your argument? Is it just about this book, or is it about something broader?
Yes. It’s whining drivel.