More Censorship
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Cancel culture is real. I personally dislike those who participate in same - but I also recognize it's their right. And if businesses view same as sound business decisions I likewise recognize their right to participate in same. But it still can be a form of censorship.
When the gov participates it's a different story....
Bingo. It's like Mas. He hates wearing a mask and social distancing and anything that doesn't allow him to do whatever he wants because "freedom". But, at the same time he despises the antidote to all his "hates" which comes in the form of a vaccine that will cure all the problems he's outraged about.
What can anyone do for someone who is outraged about everything?
Outraged about everything?!? You really haven’t noticed the left the last four years?
of course it's censorship.
that said, anyone who thinks widespread and blatant censorship of a zillion times more significance than this doesn't go on all day every day on every news/politics outlet in the country, and always has, lives in a pure fantasy world.
either govt, or money, or both, has defined literally all the news we get, or don't get, since before the founding fathers were in diapers.
it's not personal, it's just business, or politics, or both.
"Cancel culture" is just a current buzz phrase for something that's been going on forever. It happens with both sides. I remember in the early 2000s there was a book called "Buy Blue". I'm sure there is an equivalent on the other side. This is just an excuse for outrage. Just like phrases like "Death Tax". or "Pro-Abortion". It's some stupid phrase that's been focus grouped and that's what came out as the phrase that hit home with people.
There's no better person than Frank Luntz at that. Read his wiki page. He has come up with most of these types of buzz words or phrases. I personally think he's a genius even though he's been on the other side for his entire career.
Frank Luntz - Wikipedia
I'm sick of outrage.
Amazon sells 85% of the books in America and their decisions impact the people publishing books. Amazon is getting to the point it is big enough, rich enough, and powerful enough to act like the gov't. Capitalism only is capitalism if there is competition in the market and too many of our markets don't have real competition and act as oligopolies that collude and control markets. This isn't a case of economy of scale eliminating competition but gov't policy that favors big businesses. Trump had issues but the reason so many of the big companies favored Biden is because Trump was going after Amazon and other massive corporations along with big tech companies controlling so much of the markets.
"Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the third most important revenue stream, contributing 12.5% to the overall mix. However, despite contributing a relatively small percentage to total revenue in 2019, AWS made up a large portion of Amazon’s operating income, making it the key to the company’s overall profitability".
Has COH issued a diatribe on how "cancel culture" should be tossed into history's dustbin, along with "systemic racism", and his other pet peeves?"Cancel culture" is just a current buzz phrase for something that's been going on forever. It happens with both sides. I remember in the early 2000s there was a book called "Buy Blue". I'm sure there is an equivalent on the other side. This is just an excuse for outrage. Just like phrases like "Death Tax". or "Pro-Abortion". It's some stupid phrase that's been focus grouped and that's what came out as the phrase that hit home with people.
There's no better person than Frank Luntz at that. Read his wiki page. He has come up with most of these types of buzz words or phrases. I personally think he's a genius even though he's been on the other side for his entire career.
Frank Luntz - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'm sick of outrage.
If so, I apologize for the insinuation.
I want to tell you about Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush. None of them "outraged" me until W dragged us into Iraq. Trump is a different animal. He is a horrible human being, a serial liar, and a traitor to the United States of America.
I couldn't stand Bush II, but there is no doubt that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Neocons love this country. Their ideas/opinions were just wildly different than mine and W's approval ratings dipped into the 20s. Trump is a wannabe dictator and has the approval of 90% of the Republican Party. That is a fact. He sells our own soldiers out to Russia. He was okay with Saudi Arabia murdering and dismembering a reporter for the Washington Post. We can go on and on. He is a racist, sick human being. Everyone who has worked with him echoes that.
Americans have the power to stop them. Stop buying things from Amazon. Their stock will go to zero. I don't go to Walmart because of the way they treat their workers. Price isn't everything to me. No one is forcing anyone to click on Amazon.
I agree with you that the US is becoming an Oligarchy, though. And again, Americans have the power to do something about it by voting. Citizens United was the beginning of the end.
In addition to my other post, I think the leaders of big businesses in the US were sick and tired of Trump embarrassing the US around the world. I've seen polls on the finance sector, for instance.
They saw record profits under Trump. Bankers are backing Biden anyway.
Bankers' preference for the former vice president comes even as the Trump administration has delivered in a significant way for the banks.
www.politico.com
Ok. But you mentioned government contracts. I would agree AWS is wildly profitable. But far more than just the Government uses AWS.
Off the Rails: Inside the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency
Four conspiracy theorists marched into the Oval Office on Dec. 18. Chaos ensued.www.axios.com
Read this article and tell me about Trump's legal team.
More irrelevant ankle biting.
The question is not whether Trump’s lawyers were off the rails. The question is who gets to make that call and then what do we do about it. I’m not sure what the right answe is, but I can say the wrong answer is public harassment, threats and threats for disbarment from the very officials who could be part of governmental misconduct.
First, I don't buy your initial statement. Government intervention is not necessarily censorship.
Second, when when several media giants consort together to limit public discourse, everyone should be concerned. Essentially, a large portion of public communication is currently controlled by a few giant companies. The main pipeline of free expression controlled by a very small minority of people who quickly cut off views and opinions with which they disagree. The behavior of Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Amazon is a new and novel situation for this country. It is appalling and It does need to be dealt with because they control so much of communication on the internet.
America has always been the Mecca of free speech in the world. Regardless of political affinity, only a fool would say the current situation is acceptable should not be a concern to everyone in this country. If the problem is that a vast majority of communication in is controlled by a very few companies, then break them up and spread the communication network around among smaller companies.
1. Agreed. It depends on the facts and is not necessarily censorship
2. Yes that’s a concern
Disbarment
Primary tabs
Definition
The revocation of a lawyer’s license to practice law, usually as a result of a violation of professional ethics.
Disbarment may be imposed by the state bar association if a lawyer commits an offense that directly relates to his or her fitness to practice law. Such offenses may include dishonesty, fraud, felony, substance abuse, abuse of public office, or “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
disbarment
"Under professional codes of conduct across the country, attorneys are prohibited from engaging in “frivolous” conduct, and legal ethics generally prohibit lawyers from bringing claims for “improper purposes,” such as undermining an election. Conduct outside the courtroom matters, as well. And Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics expert at UCLA Law School, summarized that being an attorney means “ultimately standing up for and promoting the rule of law as a core democratic value.”
Commentary: The case for disbarring Rudy Giuliani, other Trump lawyers—and even some lawmakers
Attorneys who supported President Trump's baseless claims of election fraud, including members of Congress, must face professional consequences.
NYSBA’s bylaws state that “no person who advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States, or of any state, territory or possession thereof, or of any political subdivision therein, by force or other illegal means, shall be a member of the Association.” Mr. Giuliani’s words quite clearly were intended to encourage Trump supporters unhappy with the election’s outcome to take matters into their own hands. Their subsequent attack on the Capitol was nothing short of an attempted coup, intended to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
New York State Bar Association Launches Historic Inquiry Into Removing Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani From Its Membership - New York State Bar Association
This decision is historic for NYSBA, and we have not made it lightly. We cannot stand idly by and allow those intent on rending the fabric of our democracy to go unchecked.
nysba.org
Last edited:
Disbarment
Primary tabs
Definition
The revocation of a lawyer’s license to practice law, usually as a result of a violation of professional ethics.
Disbarment may be imposed by the state bar association if a lawyer commits an offense that directly relates to his or her fitness to practice law. Such offenses may include dishonesty, fraud, felony, substance abuse, abuse of public office, or “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
disbarment
www.law.cornell.edu
"Under professional codes of conduct across the country, attorneys are prohibited from engaging in “frivolous” conduct, and legal ethics generally prohibit lawyers from bringing claims for “improper purposes,” such as undermining an election. Conduct outside the courtroom matters, as well. And Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics expert at UCLA Law School, summarized that being an attorney means “ultimately standing up for and promoting the rule of law as a core democratic value.”
Commentary: The case for disbarring Rudy Giuliani, other Trump lawyers—and even some lawmakers
Attorneys who supported President Trump's baseless claims of election fraud, including members of Congress, must face professional consequences.fortune.com
That quote is happy horseshit.
Challenging elections in court is allowed in every state. Improper counting and improper election procedures are grounds for a challenge. None of that is “undermining elections”.
Lawyers do much more than stand up for the rule of law. If we were stuck with a rule of law constraint, “separate but equal” would still be law. The law constantly changes and lawyers are at the foundation of that change.
It seems that many prominent attorneys and judges think otherwise.
A draft of the complaint to the Supreme Court of New York’s attorney grievance committee accuses Mr. Giuliani of knowingly making false claims about the election and urges an investigation into “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in or out of court.”
Calls to discipline Mr. Giuliani have mounted in the weeks since the riot and are intensifying even now, after Mr. Trump has left office. The latest complaint, signed by a bipartisan who’s-who of legal luminaries from New York and beyond, represents perhaps the most serious condemnation of Mr. Giuliani’s conduct to date.
Prominent Lawyers Want Giuliani’s Law License Suspended Over Trump Work (Published 2021)
The move by dozens of lawyers, including judges and former federal prosecutors, was the latest in a series of calls to censure him.
As for the quote, take it up with Cornell Law School.
Challenging election in court in over 60 lawsuits, losing them all on the grounds of lack of evidence, and still insisting otherwise does undermine elections. At some point, adhering to the rule of law is necessary. Aren't you all for law and order?
Most of the cases, including Texas v Pennsylvania were decided on various procedural grounds. Courts never considered evidence.
being we have no "state" media, onshore anyway, all media is private media.
thus i'll presume you're stating that all media censorship is ok, because it's all done by private media.
as far as the govt "interceding" in said censorship,
when the media has a financial interest in govt policy, which is literally always, directly or indirectly, then the govt is always overtly or covertly or inadvertently, interceding in everything said media does or says.
media can censor on things that have zero direct or indirect govt interest, without the govt interceding.
the instant any govt interest is involved, directly or indirectly, which is 99.99 % of the time on anything of significant public consequence, then govt interceds by default, even if silently, just by said media knowing there is a govt interest involved.
when major media, or their advertisers, or their major sources of funding, have multiple issues before the FCC, or FTC, or FDA, or any regulatory agency, or any interest in future legislation, which is 100% of the time, then while members of govt may or could be involved in how media does or doesn't cover something, regardless, they don't have to be involved for said medias' coverage to be influenced, as said media's coverage of something/anything will be influenced just by knowing there is a govt interest in the matter.
if a mafia Don has an interest in a restaurant a critic is reviewing, and the critic knows a mafia Don has an interest in it, the mafia Don doesn't have to say anything to the critic, for the critic to be influenced by the mafia Don's interest in the restaurant.
Hammer meet nail.
Capitalism, something that is supposedly a core tenet of the republican party, is a brutal 'fvck your feelings' competitive game of majority power.
Capitalism is all about making money and if something hinders the ability to make money, capitalism will crush it.
It just cracks me up that Trumpism is bad for business and capitalism will eventually crush it.
It will be brutal and Trumpers will bitch and cry and lie and mis-represent the phenomena that they are on the receiving end of.
Enjoy the ride to Outcastville fellas.
It's a horrible, lonely place.
After reading this thread, I'm posting this here so it will be noticed.
Stoll has at least two college degrees and, despite Stoll's brave acceptance of an obligation to obey the CPAs' impossibly vague and self-contradictory ethical rules, he should have known better than to start this stupid thread and I'm calling him out for it.
In the beginning, there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalist newspapers did not publish material submitted by Anti-Federalists and vice versa. Despite the immense power over American media that each possessed, no one claimed the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were required to publish each other's political material. No one called anybody "snowflakes". No one cried "cancel culture" into his corn flakes. That's the true American tradition of freedom of press and speech.
As one famous example, in 1799, journalist James Callender called John Adams a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In 1806, Federalist John Adams called Federalist Alexander Hamilton a "bastard brat of a Scotch pedler."
No one gave a shit then. And no one should give a shit now that an American business, not a government agency, has stopped selling a book without banning anybody else in the world (hermaphrodite or bastard or not) from selling or even criticizing them for selling it.
You really can't defend trying to make this an issue, Stoll. You're educated enough to know better. You really can't make credible, alarmist claims of "cancel culture" without explaining and defending the present GOP "censure culture" of attacks on Liz Cheney and others. Good luck in responding.
Has the government fined you or arrested you for something that you said and has eliminated all outlets that you have to get your content out?
Answer yes. You were censored.
Answer no. Your speech was rejected by the market and the power players in the market for hurting their business. Get over it snowflake or better yet, organize a protest to hurt Amazon's business to get their attention.
Welcome to being a minority.
This is a better argument than the c word, and I'll give you a point or two on hypocritical business procedures.
It's still capitalism in its brutal glory (I'm a Kelley grad and a huge believer in capitalism so don't get me wrong. I just know that's its a brutal phenomenon. Capitalism is all about the freedom to make money. If you hinder that, it will crush you).
the major media companies, while having different owners, all share a common core advertiser base, the healthcare/pharma industrial complex.
if there were 10 times as many major news outlets like NBC, CNN, Fox, they would still all share that common advertiser base.
that's why we don't have universal healthcare like the rest of the world, even though it's been proven better at half the cost.
why you never ever see it so much as debated at length on any major news network, even though it's the biggest issue out there by far.
people who come here from other countries all think we are brain dead level crazy to do healthcare as we do, as they have all lived the far better healthcare system.
people from the US who now live elsewhere, and see how healthcare is done where they now live, think we are brain dead level crazy to do healthcare as we do.
as much as big pharma and the insurance industry make from incremental sales due to the blanketing of the major media with pharma and insurance ads all day everyday, they make far more from using their financial influence over said media from buying up the majority of the ad spots, to kill MFA.
if you wondered why there are so many pharma ads and insurance ads on our mainstream media, it isn't just about incremental sales.
it's about buying veto power influence over the media itself..
the second we go to a Medicare For All system, all those ad buys, and all those billions and billions in revenue for the media, go away the next day.
if all those ads never sold one extra pill, or one extra insurance policy, they would still be a wise expenditure by the pharma and insurance industries.
as for the big tech conglomerates, while i agree they should be broken up to some degree, if the revenue model is selling your private information, and ads based in your private info, then those buying your private information will still be buying it, regardless of how much you break up big tech, and the advertiser bases will still be the same.
and the political and "speech" influence they buy from big tech from buying the data and ad space, will just be spread out over more venues.
while breaking them up to some degree is absolutely good policy from an anti trust pov, not sure it will impact tech's censorship practices rather than just spread them out more.
totally banning any and all personal private data harvesting is also needed at least as much.
the advertising industry did just fine before data harvesting was a thing, and it will survive just fine after it's made illegal.
What's interesting to me is the tiny things Trumpsters go bonkers about. Amazon not selling a book becomes something that makes their blood boil.
It's very sad.
divide and conquer.
do you think it's easy keeping the country split almost 50/50 on party all the time?
constant tweaking is necessary.
if the Dems start gaining too big an advantage in the polls, time for MSNBC and CNN to incite some blacks to riot in the streets, or make a ridiculously big deal over bathroom choice.
if the Pubs gain too much ground, time for Fox to push hard against $15 hr, or support crazyville.
maintaining that near 50/50 split is what matters, and wouldn't be possible if either party actually started representing the people as a whole.
This book, and it’s apparently interwoven Trumpism(lol), has been a best seller since it was published. It wasn’t “canceled” because it was bad for business and therefore crushed by capitalism.
of course it was crushed by capitalism.
you don't actually think the book's sales made an even infinitesimal dent on Amazon's thinking do you.
Amazon is playing a bigger game here, and it is capitalism based.
Amazon and Facebook don't play anything not capitalism based.
if Amazon or Facebook did it, it's based in capitalism.
the algorithm allows for nothing else.
If you read the thread, you will find why Amazon discontinued sales of the book because they have a policy against hate speech. This should be a bonanza for other book sellers. They can now monopolize the sale of this incredible book.
Amazon can do what they want. Just like Hobby Lobby can do all the nutty things they do.
It's called business.
How do you know it’s hate speech? Have you read it?
And if it is hate speech, why did they sell it for 3 years?
I don't. No idea and I don't care.
If Amazon decides a book that I like is hate speech, I can't do anything about it. I linked where anyone can go buy the book from many different online stores. If I were you, I would take my business elsewhere. I would also, turn down the outrage level.
Amazon made that decision, not me, not Democrats, or anyone else.
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this isn’t a false flag by Amazon and the author to sell more books.
Because I’m guessing that will be the end result.
Also, 😂 at telling me to turn down my outrage level.
Apparently, YOU haven’t read the thread. I don’t care what Amazon does. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Similar threads
