You do know the difference between censorship and a private company deciding that certain views are too toxic for their brand to continue providing a platform for them, right?
Considering anyone who doesn’t care to read Cernovich, for example, can simply block him, this comment sounds a bit out of place. The ability to block somebody means that no individual can affect the “brand”.
To say this is censorship or a violation of certain people’s free speech is like saying that because lots of papers won’t run my columns, and websites sometimes won’t, despite my following, that I’m being oppressed. That’s bullshit.
You’re mixing terms. It’s not oppression, quite right. However, it is indeed “censorship”. And of course nobody has free speech rights in somebody else’s living room. That’s not at question here.
Where do you draw the line? Should Medium be required to provide space to actual Nazis like Andrew Anglin or Weev who openly advocate murdering Jews and people of color, or expelling them from the U.S.?
There you have it. A very good “line” would be anyone advocating criminality or violence. Expelling somebody from the US who is here legally would be contrary to law and human rights; expelling somebody who is here ILlegally is simply advocating that current law be followed. .
Free speech means you don’t go to jail or get punished for your views. It doesn’t mean you are entitled to impose upon someone else to provide you the microphone, or writing platform.
If an institution’s POLICY is to hand the mike to anyone who has met certain criteria, then they must do so when a noxious individual meets that criteria, or they are indeed censors.
If any of these people (and I don’t read any of them) have violated the TOS, then yes, kick them out. If all they do is annoy people WITHIN those TOS, then it’s quite hypocritical to evict them.
Seems simple to me.
This is some pretty basic legal and philosophical stuff mister cypher punk
Yea, it is.
Methinks you protesteth too much.