Kennedy, an anti-vaccine crusader, is seeking support for a Democratic presidential run.
I think this will just strengthen the hardcase conspiracists, and whatever platforms choose to continue to have him. I’m not sure that this really accomplishes anything, and may even be counter-productive.
Disagree. Keeping this dumb and objectively wrong bs out of mainstream platforms does more to prevent the spread of dumb beliefs more than it helps propagate them, as you limit the spread amongst the people who are too dumb to see through the lies and too lazy to go seek out the bs themselves.
If this asshole actually gets the democratic nomination I will have completely and utterly lost all faith in the States.
You’re the first person I’ve ever seen suggest that there was a chance he could. Am I missing some polling?
Last I heard he was actually polling higher than DeSantis is among republicans. He’s a Kennedy so that’s going to get him so following alone. RFK Jr has actually done some incredible environmental law work that has earned him some fans. Anti-vax rhetoric was originally a hippie left-wing movement so he’s got that going for him.
Personally, I think its just that people see “Jr.” and assume he’s a younger candidate than Biden. He’s 70.
70? Just a whippersnapper then!
Regardless of your opinion of RFK Jr, censorship has no place in a free society. I’m not comfortable with Google and other megacorps being the arbiters of truth.
I’m not comfortable with Google and other megacorps being the arbiters of truth
Understood. There’s a couple of aspects that I’ll present solely from devil’s advocate.
- If they leave the information up they can be found liable for that information should someone decide to file suit. Do they not have a right to protect themselves from such suits?
- Are they the sole arbiters of truth? In strictly this action, are they acting in a manner that a majority of people wouldn’t already agree with?
I expect our government to not participate in censorship. But I think we muddle a line between “government” and “corporation” when we attempt to hold companies to the same standard as the Government. Perhaps we are already too far in that government and megacorps are just so intertwine that it’s all the same, IDK. I think that’s a bit of a deeper topic than I’m willing to get into at the moment.
So that aside. The video is looking for hosting on a private company’s server. I wouldn’t want the Government to say “NO YOU MUST SHOW THAT VIDEO!!” to Google. We have to remember that the “free society” thing is a two way street. So I rather not have censorship in general (thus I completely understand your lack of comfort) and I expect no censorship from my government. But for private everyday people and up to megacorps, I expect them to be free to do what they so wish (but I wish for an open discussion rather removal of videos, but removal of video I still would say is a tool in Google’s tool chest, but they should use it last, not first. But it isn’t my company so my opinion matters next to zero in that regard). But I completely understand where you derive your statement from. I completely respect that point of view, but I disagree with it somewhat.
But in all honesty, that is simply my unsolicited opinion on this matter.
As for RFK Jr. the guy has about as much understanding of science and medicine as a rusted fire-hydrant. The amount of seriousness that should be given to that man on any of those two topics is indistinguishable from the absolute value of zero. But again, that is just my unsolicited opinion on that particular guy.
So to the classics…
Yelling “fire!!!” in a crowded theater or “bomb!”/“gun!” At a crowded concert where people can be trampled to death or vigilantes carrying can start getting trigger happy with any “suspicious” behavior is cool with you? Those folks should see consequences.
This action from YouTube is consequence after the fact, same as those situations. It should be regulated carefully, but there is a line where you are actively putting lives at risk. We agree to uphold that subjective standard collectively - that’s what a society is.
Yelling fire in a theater isn’t actually illegal, contrary to common belief. It’s a flawed paraphrasing of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling, Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that speech which would be likely to incite imminent lawless action, such as a riot, is not protected under the First Amendment. Now if someone was injured due to a stampede they could and should be held liable, but the speech itself is not illegal.
To your second example, if some idiot started shooting because someone yelled “gun” or “bomb” they would be charged with murder / manslaughter, or at the very least reckless use of a firearm, and lose their right to carry.
I’m not opposed to removing videos that advocate violence, but I don’t think this video falls under that category.
The “fire in a theater” example is the most overused and misunderstood argument and I hate how people use it to argue against civil liberties.
You mean like local governments and jurisdictions passing laws to prevent harmful speech like “fire” in a theater? There is over 100 years of history of laws being passed to prevent harmful speech. You don’t get to say something that harms people any more than you get to smoke a cigarette right next to me.
No, I mean the case people are quoting was overturned. For being unconstitutional.
