censorship

Rebranding censorship as “accountability”

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged censorship Kamala Harris Twitter on by

In an article attempting to show that Kamala Harris didn’t call for shutting down X, an AP “Fact Focus” article inadvertently shows that she is an advocate of censorship. (As is Trump, but that’s for a different article.) It shows that a particular claim — that an old video by Harris “has threatened to censor both X and Musk” — is inaccurate, but it uses this to cast a shade over the fact that Harris has called for censorship of social media. The article goes on to quote that call verbatim:

The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

(more…)

Bobo the clown

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship Harvard on by

Harvard University has long been a center of controversy. Often it’s an embarrassment to the university. But the Dean of Social Science there, somebody called Lawrence D. Bobo, has come up with a brilliant solution: Make the faculty shut up. Bobo’s babble just has to be read to be believed:

Is it outside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct for a faculty member to excoriate University leadership, faculty, staff, or students with the intent to arouse external intervention into University business? And does the broad publication of such views cross a line into sanctionable violations of professional conduct?

Yes it is and yes it does.

A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors — be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government — to intervene in Harvard’s affairs.

(more…)

Surgeon General wants compulsory warnings on the Web 1

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship Internet law on by

Threats to freedom on the Internet keep popping up. The latest outrage is a proposal by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to compel social media websites to deliver a warning of “potential mental health harms.” He doesn’t claim that social media have been scientifically shown to damage mental health; rather he says “social media has not been proved safe.”

What would it take to “prove” them safe? When the burden of proof is shifted to the negative, people can make unlimited claims of possible harm, and the defenders must somehow show these arbitrary assertions are false. Murthy has even cited lack of evidence as a cause for panic.

He has asserted that the situation is an “emergency.” In other words, he wants Congress to rush the decree through without debate.

Compulsory speech is, except in limited cases, a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech has to include the freedom not to speak. Americans may not be compelled to pledge allegiance to the flag or to recite a prayer. Forcing website owners to say “We haven’t proven our site won’t harm your mental health” is an outrage.
(more…)

Analyzing the 2024 Worldcon code of conduct 4

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged censorship conventions fandom science fiction on by

A lot of science fiction conventions have codes of conduct that put severe restrictions on speech. They aren’t always enforced, and never fully and consistently, but they can be an excuse to embarrass or eject someone a concom member doesn’t like. For instance, Balticon pulled a program participant out of a panel and subjected her to humiliating treatment for vaguely defined violations of its speech code. The con apologized but dumped all the blame on one volunteer.

Conventions need to say what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable, but we have to look closely at each one’s rules to see how much it values open discussion. So let’s get a look at the Glasgow Worldcon’s rules.
(more…)

Two views on open discussion

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged censorship education on by

Is open discussion with minimal limitations a value or a danger? Here I try to understand the people who are afraid of it and answer their concerns.

The starting point for this post was a Code of Conduct posted by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It doesn’t specify severe penalties for violation, though groups within W3C could in principle reference it as a basis for draconian rules. It recommends resolving issues by discussion in preference to censure or expulsion. So that much is OK. This code is much less of a problem than some which certain science fiction conventions have proclaimed.

Still, its list of “unacceptable behaviors” is broad, and that raises concerns. Many refer to remarks that have no place in a professional organization, such as “deliberate misinformation,” “personal attacks,” “unwelcome sexual attention,” and so on. Others, though, could be used to discourage or punish unpopular ideas.
(more…)