Internet censorship and the death of free speech.

[RoxyRollah]

So, Im excpecting there will be tinfoil hat memes ....
However this is something Im experiencing and know others its happening too on and offline as well.Anybody else notice if you post here or on other sites anything other than the mainstream narrative that is being perpetuated right now in pop culture on any "main" issues such as feminism, human rights, transgenderisim, race or whatever the hell.Have your posts been torn down, or you've been told to shut up alibet it politely (or not). I've noticed this in live time as well irl. Why is a different opinion or ideas taboo topics in 2016. Why is it just because you don't agree or veiw the world differently then a good bit of the population, why are we either censoring, or even attacking people that are just talking.

Thoughts and or experiences.....

Go!

[innerspaceboy]

I follow a number of news feeds relating to free speech and internet censorship, focusing primarily on the battle for free culture and corporate abuse of copyright law to silence / punish those exercising fair use.

TorrentFreak.com publishes numerous stories of internet censorship. Two days ago, they reported about Fox’s latest DMCA takedown notice -

This week's episode of Family Guy included a clip from 1980s Nintendo video game Double Dribble showing a glitch to get a free 3-point goal. Fox obtained the clip from YouTube where it had been sitting since it was first uploaded in 2009. Shortly after, Fox told YouTube the game footage infringed its copyrights. YouTube took it down.

Similarly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is one of the best sources for news of this nature and fights as an advocate for the preservation of internet freedoms.

Recently they published a short write up on how Sony Music filed a DMCA takedown notice to an educational YouTube video by the Hudson Valley Bluegrass Association which used small clips of bluegrass music to teach the history of the genre, (clearly fair use). But when the webmaster wrote to Sony Music and asked them to withdraw the Content ID match, Sony responded by asking for a $500 “administrative fee” and detailed information about HVBA’s use of the song clips.

Of course, this fee is complete bullsh*t and is a tactic used by corporations to force people to take down content without proper due process. Fortunately, in this case, the HVBA webmaster understood this, contested the fee, and Sony quickly withdrew their request. But thousands of other citizens of the internet are not so lucky, and corporations like Sony often frighten individuals into taking down perfectly legitimate content.

The founder of the EFF famously published a document in 1996 in response to the passing of the Telecommunications Act in defence of the freedom of the internet. The short piece outlined many of the assaults on internet freedom which followed in the 20 years that followed. Check out "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" by John Perry Barlow.

And finally, techdirt.com just published a frightening article detailing A Dozen Bad Ideas That Were Raised At The Copyright Office's DMCA Roundtables. The hearing focused on perpetuating the copyright status quo and forcing its antiquated policies on the digital world. They argued for a number of Orwellian policies such as "Service providers shouldn't be allowed to reject takedown notices", silencing public comments, and creating "Punishments for false counternotices" to give even more power to the domineering monopolies than they already have.

And the battle rages on.

[Aux-In]

The First Amendment only applies to government's ability to censor free speech. Private business can do what they want.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Aux-In

The First Amendment only applies to government's ability to censor free speech. Private business can do what they want.

Thank you.

[innerspaceboy]

Originally Posted by Aux-In

The First Amendment only applies to government's ability to censor free speech. Private business can do what they want.

Quite true. But human rights are inherent. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 clearly outlines these rights as recognized by the UN and includes the right to freedom of speech.

A side note - I must profess my gratitude to Roxy for starting this thread - it led to a series of surfing events which resulted in my discovery of and my securing an archival 180g vinyl copy of John Perry Barlow's recitation of his Declaration in a handsome gatefold package with embossed jacket and transcript, produced by the Department of Records and limited to 500 copies worldwide.

It will be the pride of my library. THANK YOU, Roxy!

[William_the_Bloody]

It's called political correctness Roxy and its historically rooted in totalitarian thought.

(read Herbert Marcus's Repressive Tolerance; its considered one of the origins of political correctness. Although the book is no boogie man, it did leave me unsettled when I read it as a young Marxist.)

Basically it states that it is okay to censor views that are considered intolerant or repressive to others. If memory serves me correct I do believe it states Conservative views, but i could be wrong.

Here are the end results, some 45 years later.

[Aux-In]

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

Quite true. But human rights are inherent. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 clearly outlines these rights as recognized by the UN and includes the right to freedom of speech.

The UN has no governing authority over the legislative processes of sovereign countries, let alone the plethora of businesses contained within them. What the UN can do in impose sanctions and that sort of thing to make life more difficult for those it considers abrigers. Inherit in that is a sense of hypocrisy by not allowing sovereign countries to have free say in how they run their affairs. Regardless, this still doesn't affect what businesses will or will not allow to be done on their Web sites, or can and cannot do on their properties.

[innerspaceboy]

Originally Posted by Aux-In

The UN has no governing authority over the legislative processes of sovereign countries, let alone the plethora of businesses contained within them. What the UN can do in impose sanctions and that sort of thing to make life more difficult for those it considers abrigers. Inherit in that is a sense of hypocrisy by not allowing sovereign countries to have free say in how they run their affairs. Regardless, this still doesn't affect what businesses will or will not allow to be done on their Web sites, or can and cannot do on their properties.

Well sh*t. So Citizens United is 100% Constitutional? Can I blame capitalism for this?

[Aux-In]

Well we keep electing non-Constitutionalists, so if it feels good, do it.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

I follow a number of news feeds relating to free speech and internet censorship, focusing primarily on the battle for free culture and corporate abuse of copyright law to silence / punish those exercising fair use.

TorrentFreak.com publishes numerous stories of internet censorship. Two days ago, they reported about Fox’s latest DMCA takedown notice -



Similarly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is one of the best sources for news of this nature and fights as an advocate for the preservation of internet freedoms.

Recently they published a short write up on how Sony Music filed a DMCA takedown notice to an educational YouTube video by the Hudson Valley Bluegrass Association which used small clips of bluegrass music to teach the history of the genre, (clearly fair use). But when the webmaster wrote to Sony Music and asked them to withdraw the Content ID match, Sony responded by asking for a $500 “administrative fee” and detailed information about HVBA’s use of the song clips.

Of course, this fee is complete bullsh*t and is a tactic used by corporations to force people to take down content without proper due process. Fortunately, in this case, the HVBA webmaster understood this, contested the fee, and Sony quickly withdrew their request. But thousands of other citizens of the internet are not so lucky, and corporations like Sony often frighten individuals into taking down perfectly legitimate content.

The founder of the EFF famously published a document in 1996 in response to the passing of the Telecommunications Act in defence of the freedom of the internet. The short piece outlined many of the assaults on internet freedom which followed in the 20 years that followed. Check out "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" by John Perry Barlow.

And finally, techdirt.com just published a frightening article detailing A Dozen Bad Ideas That Were Raised At The Copyright Office's DMCA Roundtables. The hearing focused on perpetuating the copyright status quo and forcing its antiquated policies on the digital world. They argued for a number of Orwellian policies such as "Service providers shouldn't be allowed to reject takedown notices", silencing public comments, and creating "Punishments for false counternotices" to give even more power to the domineering monopolies than they already have.

And the battle rages on.

Nostalgia Critic uploaded a great video that goes in-depth on the copyright claim abuses that go on on Youtube, all from the perspective of actual content creators.