Private platforms might possibly do what they want; that's an argument, though there are significant counterarguments. Private platforms that are explicitly carrying out the will of the government are acting as agents of the state, and are bound by the restrictions on the state.
Of course the government is already in violation. The courts might correct them, or not; the corporations might choose to do the right thing, or not. There is a point, coming closer, at which the corrective is us.
16 comments:
Rogan has an audience because Rush Limbaugh has moved on. So has the radio audience.
Neil Young has an audience on Spotify for those who became fans of his LPs, but never learned to rip CDs.
Spotify provides a platform that tracks the "plays" --and so the size of the audience -- better than radio or LPs or CDs.
Then, there's SubStack...
There are alternative platforms, but there’s not an alternative government that might obey the Constitution.
there’s not an alternative government that might obey the Constitution.
The Constitution, in particular the 9th and 10th amendments, provide, allow, and secure that (those) alternative(s). One size does not fit all, and there is no particular reason the preferences of Carrie Nation in Kansas should be endorsed by Herbert Ladd of Rhode Island. Or vice versa.
The Constitution provides those alternatives, but it does not secure them. It's just words. Securing them can only be done by some group of people actually heeding those words. The government should secure them, but it doesn't.
My instincts tell me this isn't going to work this time. Rogan hasn't had a broadcast since last Monday (27th Jan) aside from his brief message, so I think there's a cooling-off period right now. But I think there are more Rogan listeners, and obviously more Rogan revenue that facilitates immediate comparison to a few dissenting cranks. The only notable protest-joiners I have seen over this kerfuffle are Crosby, Stills, & Nash. Not much of a groundswell, is it? Of course, the Corporate Media has settled on this as the Big News Story of the Week. But next week it'll be mostly gone, I think.
"There is a point, coming closer, at which the corrective is us."
Judging from the Canadian events, I would say that point is in the rear-view mirror now. A similar movement is starting in the US, but of course they made the mistake of platforming it on Facebook, which has cancelled them. Meanwhile, the Canadian truckers have had their $10 million in funds impounded by GoFundMe (...ThenF*ckMeOver). We really need to be smarter about these things having to do with organizing and funding. A lot of good steam gets vented by people with bad minds, that are in a position to be obstructive.
One size does not fit all, and there is no particular reason the preferences of Carrie Nation in Kansas should be endorsed by Herbert Ladd of Rhode Island. Or vice versa.
The Bill of Rights, which includes our Constitution's free speech clauses, has been incorporated, in the main, into the States. Beyond that, the requirement of Rhode Island to not censor the speech of Carrie Nation, or of Kansas to not censor the speech of Herbert Ladd, in no way constitutes endorsement of any of that speech--only that the States may not censor it.
Eric Hines
I like things to come out in the open like this to be shredded by courts, rather than enforced surreptitiously by civil servants.
The Theater of the Absurd is starting to make its presence felt now:
1. In Ottawa, there is a counter protest forming, of people who live there and are getting tired of all the truck horns and party atmosphere.
They wanted to have a counter-protest – so they went and tried to get a permit:
…” Counter protesters applied for a permit, the Government denied it per covid restrictions.
They decided to break the mandate and go ahead with the protests. They have now just ironically joined the side of the truckers without realizing it - and are still counter protesting
…”They are breaking covid restrictions to counter protest against truckers who are protesting against covid restrictions.
2. Now, apparently in both Quebec and Ottawa, the municipal authorities are mobilizing the city trucks and parking them in the street around municipal infrastructure (in Quebec, the National Assembly), to prevent access by the Trucker's Convoy. In other words, the city is using its fleet of trucks to block the streets, in order to prevent trucks from blocking the streets.
Now that's really funny, Aggie.
We may very well be past the point of one branch of government "correcting" another >co-equal branch< of government.
Its sort of like, I will never consent to a ex post facto "law" requiring me to purchase a CCL for a human right already guaranteed by the 2A.
Yet, they endeavor to persevere...lol...while I carry wherever and whenever I want ;-)
nmewn
Ah yes. “Endeavor to persevere.” It is important to think long and hard about what that means.
She doesn't mention Rogan's name in the clip, but since they're talking about Spotify, it pretty strongly infers him. Couldn't he bring a civil rights lawsuit? They're targeting his free speech and him individually.
I think it was Instapundit this morning who reminded me of the fact that Rogan built his audience first, on his own platform, and Spotify bought him (and the audience) to enhance the offering on their platform. They did not "provide" the platform, and if he (and the audience) leaves that platform, it's not the speaker or that speaker's audience that will suffer from the change.
Those who would destroy that speaker and that audience must destroy more than one platform. And so they may desire. But it isn't, and won't be, done in secret.
“Couldn't he bring a civil rights lawsuit?”
I would speculate that he’s in no danger. They paid $100 million dollars for exclusive rights to his show. That’s not a contract they’re going to want to let him out of; an the contract likely has clauses in it that protect him as well.
That isn't very comforting on the issue of rights, though. Rogan is safe because he has this huge following, and Spotify has a huge sunk cost in it (as well as possibly contractual obligations). The principle that the White House can ask social media 'who shall dispose of this meddling priest?' and get action from them is a great danger to almost everyone else.
A book I was reading mentioned an incident in England in the early 1800s in which a landowner (with a title of nobility) evicted 20 of his tenants for voting the wrong way. There was no secret ballot at that time, and landowner pressure was common, although this case seems to have been particularly blatant.
Perhaps an analogy with social media censorship...at first this may seem far-fetched, since we have secret ballot and FB et al can't throw you off for voting the wrong way. BUT...assume the landowner in the analogy didn't know how people voted, but DID restrict any newspapers or political pamphlets from opposition parties from entering his domains, monitored all conversations in pubs, churches, etc, and evicted anyone who expressed opinions he didn't like. "Fair elections" would be pretty meaningless in these circumstances, even granted a secret ballot.
Pretty good analogy for current social media company practice, I think.
Post a Comment