HOME | message board | videos | photos |

Reading all 51 messages in thread
message board home

1/2/2023 1:15:39 PM

Reply or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: President & Congress
Subject: Trump's Freedom of Information Plan Msg# 1180058

From:

Tom Hemmick Forum Leader

Joined 7/21/2005

To:

Mark Freburg (Read)

Joined 4/3/2000

I have to admit that online media companies do have the right to run their own business the same as a newspaper or TV station.

Recall the idea that electronic media should be treated like utilities. The idea behind that is -- Everybody should have equal access to water, to elec power, and to digital media. Wiki has done a very thorough report about that topic. Click Here

And of course, these days there's all sorts of regulations where businesses can't just do everything their own ways. Campaign finance rules, restrictions on donations, etc. are but one example.

Since govt is loaded with police powers, prosecution powers, regulatory powers, tax audit powers, etc, seems that all govt censorship contacts & influences should have a firm wall against such influences. Prohibited, period. Seems there's no justification for contending -- the govt "didn't force" censorship. Appears that any govt "censoring suggestion" has its overhanging force implications.

Also seems a constitutional issue.

For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:
That really goes to then heart of the matter--keeping the government out of a private business. Both Jim and Joe actually made a good point that the business has the right to run their own company.

(I didn't reply to Jim because rather than discuss the problem I was addressing, he jumped right back on the We Hate Trump Train, which I'd told him in my message to him was not part of the conversation I wished to engage in. That being the case, I simply chose not to reply to him. I did reply to Joe because Joe addressed my comments without going off on a tangent.)

That all said, I have to admit that online media companies do have the right to run their own business the same as a newspaper or TV station. However, since these online companies only business is providing a platform for discussion, I would think that it would behoove them to not censor anything that is clearly not illegal, or clearly not dangerous.

And when I say dangerous, I mean information such as how to commit a crime, build explosives, and so on. That would be dangerous. Disagreeing with one's views in NOT "dangerous." Simple conversation that might convince people to believe ideas contrary to the company's core beliefs is not dangerous. That is what the LEFT seems to mean by "dangerous, or hateful, and usually by false as well. In other words, everyday speech that simply does not agree with the left's narrative. And when someone more conservative is suddently in charge (say Musk & Twitter), and the left wing powers that be which were in charge of heavily censoring conservatve views are removed from positions of power within the company, the left goes beserk complaining about fales, hateful, and dengerous all over again. I believe the ideal approach for any online platform is to keep it clean, polite, and family friendly, and to stop there.

My opinions, folks.

message board home