Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ominous Parallel

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Um...This isn't censorship.

This is a private business choosing what it allows on its website.

Just like how newspapers and cable news channels are private? Excuse me does the First amendment say only "public companies" have to allow free speech? The question you have to ask yourself is "Did Flickr choose to remove the image freely because of controversy, or did someone in power lean on them a bit now that they knew who's account to end?"

If you would persist in this statement, it might pay to note that Flickr is owned by Yahoo, a company currently on the ropes. As it just so happens, Yahoo makes money by selling ads. Content that draws attention makes Yahoo money. Controversial content especially makes Yahoo money. So Yahoo, would end content that makes money, voluntarily?

Perhaps you could also ask yourself "Does the Obama administration have a history of pushing private businesses around like they own them?" Maybe you might even go a bit more basic and ask yourself "Does this government respect property rights really at all?"

Honestly, if this picture wasn't so political, I would assume like you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Slashdot. They don't accept property rights there, so they don't belong here.

Sorry? That's where I read the article. Did you want me to remove the link?

Just make it a credit-less article written by no one?

spelling edit

Edited by th3ranger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like how newspapers and cable news channels are private? Excuse me does the First amendment say only "public companies" have to allow free speech?

Private entities have every right to ban any speech they want from their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry? That's where I read the article. Did you want me to remove the link?

Just make it a credit-less article written by no one?

If you agree with perspective of Slashdot on this issue that Flickr is trodding upon someone's rights you are wrong. You'll find no sympathizers here.

Only force can enforce censorship, which means governments. If you'll read the comments in the thread at Slashdot you'll find the relevant section of the flickr users agreement quoted for your convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture on Flickr was not the same as the one on the poster. The Flickr picture that Firas made was a TIME magazine cover, with Obama, that he changed to look like the joker. Someone else found that, took it, changed it to remove the other details of the TIME cover, and added the word "Socialism".

The news article said that Flickr removed the photo because it might have been a violation of IP law: an over-stepping of "fair use" rules. It is likely that Flickr contains thousands of photos that are questionable from an IP point of view, but when everyone knows of the existence of a particular one a company feels it has to act.

Nevertheless, as others have said even if their reason was political, it is okay. For instance, suppose the owner of Flickr is an Obama fan, and to decided to take it down, that would be his prerogative.

th3ranger: Of course, if there was some political pressure on Flickr, which got them to remove it, then that is a "free-speech" violation. No real evidence has been reported. Given the number of such photos that are floating around (click here), in all sorts of versions, I doubt anyone in the administration would go after one photo.

Of course, apart from this particular incident, there are important people in the administration who would love to stifle free-speech. They realize that without Fox News and right-wing talk radio their health-care law might have had a much better reception. They would like to stifle talk-radio, if they can get away with it.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realized minutes after posting that if flickr wanted to remove the photo, whatever the reasons, they are completely within their rights to do so. To me though, it just seems wrong somehow that the original (or at least the most well known) image critical of Obama and the mystical image he is trying to maintain just gets shut down as well as the account it was on. Now, a popular image, once let loose on the Internet, is completely impossible to stop, but shutting down the original creator's account on flickr (oh btw I do realize this is not the altered "socialism" image) goes a long, long, way in maintaining the level of fear businesses have of the Obama administration, and of the media in general of criticizing his policies.

I guess I reacted to this seeming censorship (though it may very well not be) like I knew facts that I have no reason to suspect. I'm just waiting, waiting, to catch the moment that this is no longer a free country so I may plan accordingly. I've been expecting the first real censorship to be handed down from on high any day now, although I imagine, realistically, if done effectively, I should never know about it, but being new at it, it also occurs to me that Obama's henchmen might not completely blackout a story so well.

So! false alarm for now, but I would not put something like this past the looters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So! false alarm for now, but I would not put something like this past the looters.

Yes and no. You got the wrong culprit, but there is censorship in America, carried out by the government. There are three instances:

1) Campaign finance laws. The reform passed recently, McCain-Feingold (I think), regulates what private citizens can say through some media during political campaigns. For example, if you place an add against candidate X, the law considers that a contribution in kind to the other candidate in that contest. Likewise if you try any kind of private campaign for or gainst ballot measures. There's a push to extend such repressive actions to blogs.

2) There are plenty of advertising restrictions that are violations of free speech. Granted it's impropper to show ads for condoms or cigarettes during certain types of shows (like those emant for kids or whole families), it's also stupid since you miss your target audience (that which is interested in such products); but it shoulnd't be against the law. This is regulated as being "commercial speech," therefore it is not deemed deserving of free-speech protections.

3) It's been repealed, but the "Fairness" Doctrine endured an awful long time, and many in the Democratic party want it back. Essentially the doctrine bans presenting editorials on air, be it radio or TV, unless all viewpoints are shown. That sounds "fair" but it isn't. It prevents the owners of broadcasting businesses from promoting a political viewpoint if they so choose (no such doctrine was ever enforced on newspapers or magazines). Besides, since ther eis already a liberal bias on broadcast news, that viewpoint gets to be aire without opposition.

Of the three, the last is by far the most dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private entities have every right to ban any speech they want from their property.

What would happen in a country with no public property?

A remember a disabled person complaining, that if it wasn't for government enforcing, shops and etc would never provide access to disabled people. Is this right? I guess because it's not profitable to change one's shop to a few random costumers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A remember a disabled person complaining, that if it wasn't for government enforcing, shops and etc would never provide access to disabled people. Is this right? I guess because it's not profitable to change one's shop to a few random costumers?

Maybe, maybe not. We didn't get a chance to find out.

I can tell you that in the 70s plenty of businesses did acommodate diabled patrons. Airlines, theaters and hotels foremost among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...