Pinboard (mcmorgan)
https://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/public/
recent bookmarks from mcmorganYes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal2021-08-05T16:27:39+00:00
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210802/17451247295/yes-actually-1st-amendment-does-mean-that-twitter-can-kick-you-off-platform-wall-street-journal.shtml
mcmorgan Back in February, we did a thorough debunking of Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger arguing (bizarrely, and blatantly incorrectly) that Section 230 violates the Constitution in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. It was a nearly fact free...
> Meanwhile, WHY IS PHILIP HAMBURGER CENSORING ME IN NOT LETTING ME TEACH HIS CLASS? I mean, Philip Hamburger clearly relies on public privileges to get to Columbia University, so it's not like he's a private individual. His censorship must violate the 1st Amendment, according to the logic of (oh look) Philip Hamburger.]]>censorship trumpism free speech 1st Amendmenthttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:6d4f34552437/Academic Blog on Pennsylvania HB 1532: Racism, Censorship - Grand Design2021-06-28T14:38:55+00:00
https://academeblog.org/2021/06/26/the-lunacy-of-pennsylvania-hb-1532/
mcmorgan The first problem is what the bill defines as a “racist or sexist concept” that it proposes to abolish at colleges and schools. Beyond the usual definitions of the term, here are two items that qualify for the prohibition: “The United States of America or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is fundamentally racist or sexist.” In this view, criticizing racism is defined as a form of racism. The bill also includes a ban on the idea, “An individual or institution cannot or should not treat individuals without regard to race or sex.” By this logic, anyone who supports affirmative action, or any kind of recognition of racism or sexism, would be breaking the law. HB 1532 prohibits any kind of funding for public colleges that allow ideas that meet these standards.
But I don’t think this is madness as much as using the looseness of language to enforce an agenda. Crazy like a fox sort of thing. Hateful and knowingly cruel, but not mad. The bill-writers are hoping for an echo chamber. To critique the bill’s wording, you have to point up the implications and dependencies.]]>deceit censorship racism rhetoric sophismhttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:e208d97b8ff8/The inside story of how we reached the Facebook-Trump verdict2021-05-05T23:40:43+00:00
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/05/trump-facebook-oversight-board-verdict-alan-rusbridger?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
mcmorgan The key word is “indefinitely” – if only because Facebook’s own policies do not appear to permit it. The oversight board (OSB) judgment doesn’t mince its words: “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.” Ball squarely back in Facebook’s court.
> What Facebook has to do now – in our judgment, which the company is bound to implement – is to re-examine the arbitrary penalty it imposed on 7 January. It should take account of the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm.]]>Facebook trump censorship human_rights freespeechhttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:072b3001afc2/Why We Need Free Expression, Now More Than Ever2021-01-12T16:20:12+00:00
https://academeblog.org/2021/01/11/why-we-need-free-expression-now-more-than-ever/
mcmorgan Trump’s ban from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other tech giants is the decision of a private company. But it is still censorship–censorship is a broad term that goes far beyond what must be protected by the First Amendment. When private universities violate academic freedom and fire professors for their political views, we call it censorship. Those universities are private corporations that should not be controlled by the government, but they still deserve condemnation.
...
> Censorship doesn’t stop Trump terrorism. The false feelings of victimization that motivated many of the Trump terrorists would only be enhanced by censorship. And the spread of misinformation and hate by Trump would continue largely unabated. Social media move information faster and easier, but it doesn’t fundamentally transform the transmission of ideas. Unless you’re prepared to ban right-wing media networks, websites, email, rallies, books, and everything else, you won’t stop the spread of Trump’s hateful messages.
...
> Censorship doesn’t persuade. We need to understand why so many Americans were suckered by Trump’s lies, and figure out ways to convince them to change their minds. It is a difficult project, but you cannot censor out of existence 74 million Trump voters. Powerful mass movements like the Trumpsters are not stopped by censors. You can’t even censor Trump away, since he is planning to create his own news network. One of the biggest problems we face are people living in information silos where they never encounter opposing views. Trying to banish bad ideas and deplatform bad people only increases this information segregation.
]]>racism censorship academicfreedom sedition trumphttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:88d89c0668a0/Trump to Congress: Repeal Section 2302020-12-03T17:03:34+00:00
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/trump-to-congress-repeal-section-230-or-ill-veto-military-funding/
mcmorgan Trump presumably hopes that repealing Section 230 would force Twitter to take a more hands-off approach. But there's no guarantee that would happen. Fundamentally, Twitter's right to label or remove tweets doesn't flow from Section 230, it comes from the First Amendment. Like anyone else in American society, Twitter has a First Amendment right to decide what information it will host on its own website. and this > But it's hard to see how this would deter Twitter from labeling Trump tweets as inaccurate. And it seems more likely that things would go in the opposite direction: that big platforms, unwilling to give up moderation altogether, would be forced to filter content more aggressively. Platforms that wanted to continue moderating might decide that they need to take down anything that seems potentially libelous—like Trump's May tweet baselessly insinuating that television host Joe Scarborough murdered one of his employees. \ suggest that t*ump simply wants to sue someone. Hammer looking for a nail. ]]>politics trump deception censorshiphttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:0234fb19f629/Let’s go through Trump’s terrible internet censorship order, line by line - The Verge2020-05-30T14:16:50+00:00
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/21273191/trump-twitter-social-media-censorship-executive-order-analysis-bias
mcmorgan It’s hard to capture just how badly this order mangles free speech and the entire legislative process. But one of its worst flaws is a common one: making rules that assume every website is Facebook. We’ve said over and over that Section 230 is not “a gift to big tech companies.” It’s a gift to the internet. Trump’s order makes that clearer than ever — because unlike even a fairly similar proposal from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), its “online platform” definition explicitly targets all websites, not just the biggest by users or revenue.
> I wasn’t kidding about the birdwatching forum.
> If you take this order seriously, every website with a comment section — and possibly even cloud storage services or online creative tools — is going to be covered by a convoluted set of probably unconstitutional regulations designed to stop Donald Trump from getting fact-checked on Twitter.
]]>freespeech freemind first_amendment rhetoric censorship trumphttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:08e67baac83e/In Trump’s America, a thick-headed man’s incredibly thin skin is threatening free speech | Opinion | The Guardian2017-06-15T02:39:33+00:00
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/13/in-trumps-america-a-thick-headed-mans-incredibly-thin-skin-is-threatening-free-speech
mcmorgan That large corporations are punishing creative expression because it is critical of Trump is worrying. Even more worrying, however, is the insidious but understandable creep of self-censorship among everyday Americans. This week provides yet another example that, when it comes to Trump, exercising your right to free speech – that dearest of American values – can prove an expensive endeavour.]]>polemic politics censorship trumphttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:43ce7f1c9b24/Are Your Internets Broken Today?2012-01-25T00:43:26+00:00
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/how-im-surviving-or-trying-to-without-wikipedia-at-my-fingertips/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tidbits_main+%28TidBITS%3A+Mac+News+for+the+Rest+of+Us%29
mcmorgansopa pipa censorship wikipediahttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:12b1819dfd46/Not Your Father's Censorship - ChronicleReview.com2009-01-18T22:43:57+00:00
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i19/19b00901.htm
mcmorgancensorship academicfreedom FYE libraryhttps://pinboard.in/u:mcmorgan/b:5f541148acbd/