censorship

What does the TikTok ban mean?

This entry was posted in Censorship and tagged censorship China Internet TikTok on by

Biden signed a bill banning access to an Internet service. The Supreme Court has upheld the ban, ruling in effect that claiming “national security” overrides the First Amendment. What happens next isn’t clear, but the sloppy news reports I’ve seen indicate that it could be worse than I thought. The law doesn’t do much directly to ByteDance, which is a foreign company. It’s really a ban on what businesses in the USA can do.

CNN’s report is typically sloppy and alarming in what it suggests.
(more…)

The “Paradox of Tolerance” swindle 1

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

“Paradox of Tolerance” is a favorite slogan of censorship advocates. Most often they drop the words in a discussion without elaboration to give the impression they’ve said something profound. Some will mention its connection to Karl Popper. Few will cite his words, since they’re actually opposed to censorship.

The words in question are from a footnote in The Open Society and Its Enemies. The footnote is a bit unclear; Popper was adding a passing thought, not a polished commentary. Here are the words:
(more…)

Marvel abets Chinese censorship

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged censorship China Disney Marvel MCU on by

The ruler of the world’s second most powerful country feels so insecure that he has to ban mentions of Winnie the Pooh because some people think there’s a resemblance. It would be laughable except for the real-world consequences. I’m sure none of the panels at the Chengdu Worldcon discussed Milne’s character. You also aren’t allowed to discuss it in an online game called Marvel Rivals. The use of a long list of words and phrases is flagged as inappropriate in game chat. Among the phrases Marvel won’t let you use are “Winnie the Pooh,” “Pooh,” “Tiananmen,” “1989,” and “Free Taiwan.” Ironically, Disney, which owns Marvel, also owns the animated version of Winnie the Pooh. So Disney has acquiesced in censoring the mention of its own property.
(more…)

The coming TikTok security disaster

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

As I’m writing this, the US is set to ban applications that access TikTok’s Internet service on January 19. What no one is talking about is the security nightmare that will result.

The ban won’t forbid access to TikTok; it will just forbid the preferred way to access it. App stores in the US won’t be allowed to offer the client application. Lots of other sources will still offer it. Some will be legitimate. Others will put up Trojan Horse applications. Scammers will target users trying to keep access to their accounts. A lot of devices will be infiltrated with malware.
(more…)

Trump reverses the meaning of censorship

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

In Newspeak, freedom is slavery. In Trumpspeak, freedom of speech is censorship.

Brendan Carr, whom Trump wants to head the FCC, has declared his intent to “smash the censorship cartel” using the agency’s power. According to the Washington Times, “He is threatening the platforms with revocation of their federally granted immunity against content-based lawsuits.” He’s presumably referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the few parts to survive legal challenges. It says that in general operators of websites that allow public posting of commentary can’t be held liable for what third parties post. Without it, website operators would have to keep a quick finger on the “Delete” button to keep potentially defamatory comments from showing up. They’d need to err on the side of caution. Many sites would probably find it easiest to eliminate the comments section.
(more…)

A frontal assault on free speech

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

The FIRE website discusses a “hate speech” policy being considered by a Wisconsin school district. It’s outrageous even among current attempts to stifle speech. Here’s the draft policy for the Baraboo school district, so you don’t have to take FIRE’s word for it.

It starts with the favorite lie of censorship advocates: “Hate speech is not protected speech.” It invents an exception to the First Amendment out of whole cloth.
(more…)

Bow, NH school officials attack freedom to protest

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship New Hampshire on by

On September 17, 2024, Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote wore pink armbands with an “XX” on them to a game as a protest against the Bow, New Hampshire school district’s transgender policies. They did not interfere with the game, annoy the players, or do anything else. However, the school officials didn’t like the protest, so they called it “harassment” and issued an order banning the two from subsequent games. This was a classic violation of First Amendment rights, and the two took the town to court. United States District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe has overturned the ban, though for the present they may not wear the armbands at the games.
(more…)

The march of Internet censorship

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

Legislation all over the USA is attacking freedom to communicate over the Internet. Some states have enacted age-verification requirements that endanger anonymous speech and limit minors’ access to information they may urgently need. Others are enacting bans on “deceptive” information, leaving open the questions of just what will be deemed deceptive and how people can defend themselves against such claims. An example of the latter is California’s AB 2655, recently signed into law. FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition have issued statements against it, while left-wing media sites have often been sympathetic. I posted earlier about how AP gave Harris’s call for “oversight” and “regulation” of websites as merely wanting “increased accountability.”
(more…)

A culture of free speech 1

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

Freedom of speech has a cultural dimension as well as a legal one. Legally, it means that the government must not punish people for their expression, except when it violates the rights of others (e.g., clear threats). Cultural respect for free speech is also important. Where it exists, people have room to express their opinions, even when most people disapprove of them. If it goes away, legal protections for free speech are likely to follow.

Cultural freedom of speech doesn’t mean an obligation to grant a platform or to refrain from criticism. The best way to describe it is going after ideas rather than people when possible. Saying that an idea is horrible is one thing. Saying that the person who said it horrible is a stronger charge and can do more damage. This doesn’t mean we should never condemn people for what they say, but it should be reserved for the most serious cases.
(more…)