Probably at least once for every time you say the opposite.
You say that you
Which is the opposite of what you claim when you say that you don’t want to stop people from criticizing, condemning, or ignoring POV’s that they disagree with.
So, if a baker can be forced to provide a service why can’t a publisher? Now, am I for government coercion in the case of creation? No. But I don’t see how one can reconcile the difference. And for the most part, I think it’s exceedingly clear that I am against censorship regardless of who is doing the censoring.
So you’re against free speech.
I don’t follow. Are you making the assertion that censorship is speech? Because, I’d dispute that.
Private censorship IS free speech, yes.
What service is the publisher denying?
Are you saying that a publisher has to publish anything that is submitted to them? Do they also have to promote it?
There are vanity presses out there, and I would say that if you want to publish anything you want, you should be able to pay them to publish your work. If you want a publisher to give you an advance, to publish your work on their dime, and promote you, then I would say that they should have the freedom to choose who to work with.
To analogize, it would be like your baker doesn’t get paid in advance, but is instead paying you for the privilege of selling the cake at the wedding.
Censorship is not speech regardless of who’s doing it. If a private group such as Antifa shuts down a college and censors a speaker via employment of a Heckler’s veto that is not speech. That is trespassing and assault. Is a private group firing someone over religion freedom of religion?
Can you walk into a baker and (generally, within reason) order your vision of a cake?
Can you walk into a publisher and (generally, within reason) order your vision of a book?
I am not sure how publishing works. But if a publisher refused my book that I am willing to pay to have published isn’t that the same as someone refusing to bake a custom cake?
So, when I got those chain letters, I should have been compelled to pass them on to 6 of my friends, as otherwise, I am censoring them? Or was my decision to not pass them on my free speech?
That isn’t, in any way, how actual publishing works.
I would say that’s both. Im talking about what the OP is talking about, a private company like say Facebook, censuring things on their service that goes against their terms of service. Facebook absolutely has the right to censor whatever they want as an expression of their free speech.
[Quote]Is a private group firing someone over religion freedom of religion?
[/quote]
No, that’s discrimination against a protected class.
Bah, I screwed up the quotes somehow!
That’s obvious.
More or less yeah. If you submit a work to a vanity publisher with payment, then, short of actual illegal content, they should be compelled to print out the number of copies that you ordered and to ship them to the address you provided.
But that is not what is being talked about here.
Wait, you mean Steven King didn’t pay to get all those novels published?
WHAT? THEY PAID HIM FOR THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH HIS BOOKS???
First, thank you for the thoughtful reply!
Perhaps you’re right. It’s disappointing, but it does seem the most likely explanation. It’s easy to advocate for free speech when you are the one being silenced.
Yes. It’s abundantly clear that the posters in this thread are opposed to true free speech as you describe it.
Yeah, I read that exchange on Twitter. But Greenwald also wrote this:
My interview with Strangio was too long ago for me to comfortably summarize it, but suffice to say there was no question that his views on free speech are sharply divergent from those that caused me to regard ACLU lawyers and their free speech absolutism as among my childhood heroes. If you want to hear reasons why the ACLU should be more reluctant to represent the free speech rights of “dangerous” extremists and why free speech should give way to other, more important values — views I vehemently reject — Strangio is about the most thoughtful advocate I’ve heard in defense of that position.
So maybe Strangio (cool name, by the way), didn’t mean what he said in his tweet. Maybe. But he does put other concerns ahead of free speech, which for an ACLU lawyer… why would you join the ACLU if that is your view? And Greenwald did include other evidence of the conflict inside the ACLU in his essay:
Among the people I interviewed was the organization’s long-time Executive Director, Anthony Romero, who was forced to navigate the post-Charlottesville controversy with a series of increasingly confusing statements designed to appease not only public and donor anger over the defense by ACLU lawyers of the right of white supremacists to march (after one killed a protester with his car) but also internal rage that ACLU lawyers took that free speech case. Romero insisted to me that the ACLU had not retreated from its historic commitment to free speech nor its resolve to avoid partisan politics despite a series of post-Charottesville memos and a highly-funded election campaign that certainly gave the opposite appearance.
I’m glad at least you see the existence of the phenomenon. Do you think Greenwald is wrong about the generation gap in attitudes between Boomers/Gen X and Millennials/Gen Z?
Oh, they sound powerful. And scary. Shutting down colleges with brute force, or words, or something is not to be encouraged.
A baker can refuse to back a cake for a large variety of reasons. If they don’t have the equipment/ingredients for that cake. If they want to charge more than the customer is willing to pay. They can even refuse based on message content, as long it to discriminate against a protected class. They could refuse to put a fraternity logo on a cake because they hate fraternities, but they couldn’t refuse because black person requested the cake, or a it was for a church social, or because the customer is gay.
Whether protected classes should is exist is a whole other debate, but as long as they do, then refusing service of any kind is not allowed on grounds of membership in one of those classes.
I’m sure we’ll see a list of names and quotes that back up this assertion abundantly soon.
Did you see anyone else agree with me that private organizations should refrain from censorship? Because I didn’t.
As it seems as though @DemonTree’s definition of “true free speech” is actually compelled speech, then it is likely that many in this thread will meet that twisted definition.