Can we cancel you? Didn't know that was an option.
Yes, i support amazon not carrying hate speech.
More Censorship
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Can we cancel you? Didn't know that was an option.
Yes, i support amazon not carrying hate speech.
Stol obviously is outraged. Fine. You don't care. I don't care. Lots of hypocrisy everywhere.
It's a deposit only bank.
They made money off of it and are thankful for it I'm guessing.
Going forward, they believe the majority market is going to turn on them and therefore do something that could really crush Amazon....hurt the brand.
So they decided to cut it off.
The concept of a brand is the epicenter of capitalism.
Look at the My Pillow dude. Two years ago he made a pillow that people liked. Today he poisoned his brand so much that it's now an emotional purchase and guess what, it's not a great enough product to carry the brand even with the majority disliking the owner (see Chik FIL a as a reverse example. Yeah he's an old, religious nut job but goddamn, that's some good chicken!! Lol).
Capitalism is going to crush the my pillow brand and send it to the radical right extreme as it's only market that you can purchase in radical right stores because the mainstream retail outlets are distancing themselves from his brand so it doesn't poison their brand.
That's capitalism in its purest form.
The right is now complaining that's its censorship.
It's not.
They think it is fine for a baker to refuse a cake for a gay marriage but appalled that hate speech is taken off amazon
These people are wacko
These people are wacko
Last edited:
that was the dumbest analogy I’ve seen in some time. Stupidity doesn’t require thoughtful responses
This seems like a lot of projection on your part. If that was actually Amazon’s intention(I don’t believe it was), then it backfired on them. Just google this story. They’re taking a ton of heat.
Also, it is censorship. It’s the actual definition of censorship.
Again, how do you know the book is hate speech? Have you read it?
To my knowledge, Amazon hasn’t said anything AT ALL about this story. So how do you know that’s why it was removed?
That's simply not true. And it was determined by the US Supreme Court. In fact Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion:
1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Private Entities Operating Public Access Channels
May a private entity running a public access channel ban speakers based on the content of their speech—something a government entity running the same channels could not do? Yes, the Supreme Court held…
www.nlc.org
The First Amendment only prohibits government, as opposed to private, abridgement of speech. In an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh the Supreme Court held that private operators of a public access cable channels aren’t state actors subject to the First Amendment. While the majority acknowledged that private entities may qualify as state actors in limited circumstances, including when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function, the Court concluded that exception doesn’t apply in this case.
“[A] private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises ‘powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.’ It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way.”
What hypocrisy? You guys love accusing liberals of hypocrisy, but I don't see how that charge even makes sense here.
In Trumpland, everything is a "False flag". From Sandy Hook to Amazon. Everything is fake. It's exhausting.
There are forms of censorship other than government censorship. This qualifies. It's the weakest form of censorship, because it's the easiest to defeat (just shop somewhere else; problem solved), but it is still a form of censorship.That's simply not true. And it was determined by the US Supreme Court. In fact Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion:
1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Private Entities Operating Public Access Channels
May a private entity running a public access channel ban speakers based on the content of their speech—something a government entity running the same channels could not do? Yes, the Supreme Court held…www.nlc.org
The First Amendment only prohibits government, as opposed to private, abridgement of speech. In an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh the Supreme Court held that private operators of a public access cable channels aren’t state actors subject to the First Amendment. While the majority acknowledged that private entities may qualify as state actors in limited circumstances, including when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function, the Court concluded that exception doesn’t apply in this case.
“[A] private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises ‘powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.’ It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way.”
This is one example of why people need to be careful about claiming overbroad values. A lot of people would like to say, "I'm opposed to censorship, period!" But that's not true. All of us agree that controlling content is good in certain situations. I don't think any of us have a problem with parental locks on porn channels. Or allowing a Christian bookstore to decline to carry guides to Wicca. Or allowing Amazon to decline to sell books it claims constitute hate speech (or if said books are really just problematic for the brand). Or keeping government secrets from the public when their dissemination might hurt national security. But those are all, in fact, forms of censorship.
Last edited:
That’s nice, but I didn’t say it was government censorship.That's simply not true. And it was determined by the US Supreme Court. In fact Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion:
1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Private Entities Operating Public Access Channels
May a private entity running a public access channel ban speakers based on the content of their speech—something a government entity running the same channels could not do? Yes, the Supreme Court held…www.nlc.org
The First Amendment only prohibits government, as opposed to private, abridgement of speech. In an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh the Supreme Court held that private operators of a public access cable channels aren’t state actors subject to the First Amendment. While the majority acknowledged that private entities may qualify as state actors in limited circumstances, including when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function, the Court concluded that exception doesn’t apply in this case.
“[A] private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises ‘powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.’ It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way.”
You said it wasn’t censorship-it quite clearly is.
Jesus. You guys just can’t help yourselves, can you?
1. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. That’s why I added “conspiracy theorist” and “wonders”
2. The post had nothing to do with Trump.
3. I’m not a Trump supporter.
Everything always circles back to Trump with you guys. 😂
It’s hilarious.
But they're not "censoring" as it's defined. These are private companies that can operate and make business decisions as they see fit. They are not imposing their will on you or anyone else.
If the public doesn't like that they don't carry the Satanic Bible, they can choose to take their business elsewhere and Amazon may lose money. It's a business decision...whether the book is a best seller or not. Amazon has made a business decision/bet that more people would be upset by them carrying the book than people who are upset by them not selling it. If it doesn't work out it's a private business matter.
Censorship is a group imposing their will or opinion onto you. They're not required to sell a book. That's absurd.
You don’t find it hypocritical that Amazon will sell you Mein Kampf but draws the line at this book, which, from everything I’ve read, is well researched and well presented?
Matter of fact, I haven’t seen it described as hate speech anywhere but here. I’m sure it probably is labeled that way somewhere, but I haven’t seen it.
Your definition of censorship is simply incorrect.
I don't know. I haven't read the book. I thought the hypocrisy charge was being leveled at "liberals" in general. Apologies if that was not your intent; it certainly seems to be the intent of the OP and most others in this thread.
If an IU clothing store refuses to sell Kentucky shirts, is that censorship? If a vegetarian restaurant refuses to add a steak dish into a cookbook it is selling, is that censorship? Heck, if a business refuses to sell Trumpopoly because it just does not sell, is that censorship. It seems censorship might be happening millions of times.
How is Amazon forcing their opinions on the American public? They're not controlling ideas or information. They aren't stopping anyone from obtaining the book.
Amazon is a store. If they don't sell used space shuttles are they censoring spacecraft?
Probably not, definitely not, and probably not. Depends on how broadly you define "content," "speech," "information," and the like for these purposes. Brand protection (the IU store) might be considered a form of censorship. But it might not be brand protection going on; it might just be that they know none of their customers will buy those items so why stock them? Food definitely doesn't qualify. If the reason the store isn't selling Trumpopoly is that it's a bad seller, then no, but if they actually don't want to support the message spread by the game, then it would qualify.
Simply refusing to sell a product isn't censorship. Refusing to disseminate a particular message because of a judgment about its value or worth is. So only products that carry a message, and which are refused placement for the qualifying reasons, would actually be censorship.
EVERYONE needs to sell this book if they sell books? Your definition is not only incorrect, it's silly. Just like Twitter has rules about their platform, Amazon has, as a private business, a right to establish their own rules of operation.
If someone forces a private business to sell a book that the business doesn't want to sell, that would be infringement of the 1st Amendment.
So early on I mentioned a religious store refusing to carry a book on atheism, censorship?
I believe Amazon should carry it, but I know the same people screaming censorship would not bat an eye if Amazon blocked Rules for Radicals. I still will sign an online petition, it does not appear they looked one up yet.
What in the flying f*ck are you talking about? I don't think everyone should sell this book. Only businesses that want to sell it should sell it. Period. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong to claim it isn't "censorship." It is. Some censorship is good. Maybe this is an example of good censorship.
Make up your mind. You don't want them to sell Mein Kampf, but you it's censorship if they don't sell some weird book.
Definitely censorship. But as I already alluded to above with my similar reference to a book on Wicca, it's the type of censorship I think we all agree should be allowed.
It's not. You find a definition and we can discuss it. Forcing a private business to sell a book is unconstitutional. And Amazon can and does decide which products to sell from their own store.
What you're saying is patently absurd.
Nah, they should sell whatever they want to sell, and we should all just get over it.
I mean, I'd love it if there were a place where I could buy any book ever written, no matter how nutso it was. I love the idea of having access to even the most depraved nonsense, if I should choose. But I don't have a right to expect any particular business to fill that role for me. If Amazon thinks it is in their best interest not to carry a particular book, then I just have to live with that. Amazon's first duty is to Amazon, not me.
I'm sorry you're having problems. Define censorship as you understand it.
Right, it seems the word is so broad it has little meaning.
It is like the word discrimination. It usually comes up in race discussions and is bad. But choosing not to eat raw chicken is discrimination but it is not bad.
The problem is the context. Most times censorship is used in printed material is governmental, especially when Nazi Germany was brought up soon into the thread.
So in popular usage I do not think censorship quite works.
Mirriam-Webster keeps it simple:
censor, v. - to suppress or delete as objectionable
Wiki's is probably better:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.
Either one works for our purposes. Neither one equates it to government censorship only.
I disagree. When you start expanding it to non-speech contexts, like your steak example, then it's absurdly overbroad. But that's not the real definition. If you want to narrow it, you can do that. Simply say "official censorship" or "government censorship" or whatever you need to fit the context you are talking about. But what Amazon is doing is, indeed, a form of censorship. That doesn't mean it's the same as other forms of censorship, but denying it qualifies as censorship at all doesn't help anything; it only sows confusion.
Correct. Here are a number of definitions of censorship from PBS. Not a single one supports Goat's "definition".
From your own link:
Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves.
How often do you hear censorship used in this broad definition? Like I suggested, discrimination has a broader definition as does prejudice, we seldom hear them.
Well, this thread, for one.
For two, with the media. When a radio station won't place an obscene song, that's called censorship. Always has been. Even if the radio station is privately owned, and the decision was made by someone in middle management, and not a government regulator.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Who will be the 1st school to hire a General Manager?- Latest: cshartle123