Enthusiasm for censorship has had a broad popular support from both sides of the political spectrum. Censorship is never free speech, regardless if Democrats or Republicans do it.
Do anyone feel like arguments like "No one has a right to a platform" making this kind of censorship better? Should we view platforms as a megaphones, one that should be denied or given based on the whims of the owner?
No, it not only canceling when Democrats do it. Both sides enjoy censorship and it should always be viewed with suspicious.
You're being disingenuous and trying to create a false equivalence with your use of the term "platform." The CDC is not a platform, and this kind of censorship is not equivalent to social media being allowed to "censor" content through moderation.
I humbly disagree with both your accusations that it is disingenuous, or that CDC is not used as a platform for publishing papers. CDC call the CDC library as a publishing environment where parties submitt papers and documents for publication.
The CDC is not a platform in the sense that "platform" is commonly understood when discussing social media, meaning a privately controlled entity.
The simple fact that the CDC publishes papers does not make the two equivalent, because the rights that private citizens have relative to the First Amendment differ versus the government. What Trump and his administration are doing is a violation of the First Amendment. What social media platforms do when they ban or moderate content is an expression of the First Amendment.
As the counter argument goes, the first amendment does not grant the right of amplified speech. If the government act as a publisher, with discretion to choose which information they choose to publish, then there is no conflict. Feel free to provide examples of first amendment being used to compell the government to publish someone else book or study.
I would like to reassert that censorship is harmful regardless which side does it, especially when the purpose is to silence opposing political views. The filtering should occur at the end points and in control of the user, not governments or companies.
It wasn’t but a few months ago when certain words and topics not in favor with the ruling administration wouldn’t be published. Now the pendulum has swung, and it’s suddenly a freedom of speech concern. Maybe even the end of democracy.
The US has always been hypocritical about freedom of thought and expression. We literally have an Office of Anti-Boycott compliance to ensure American companies (even privately held ones) don't boycott Israel.
The world is complicated. This policy was established in response to a secondary boycott policy from the Arab League, where any company that agreed to do business in Israel would not be allowed to do business in a member country. Congress judged, I think correctly, that prohibiting companies from cooperating with this boycott was the only way to preserve their broader freedom to choose which countries they do or don’t want to do business in.
There's (still) a way to call this office and snitch on your company if you think they aren't offering services or contracts to Israel that they are offering to other countries. I know the history here. It's still blatantly against the idea of the free market and free expression
The entire “freedom” thing in the US has some pretty funky “terms and conditions apply”. I am not sure if anyone actually thinks they are more “free” than other first world countries.
I live in the Deep South. People here absolutely and unironocally believe they live in the freest country on earth. This view is widespread for a thousand miles.
That's by design and not new. The whole nationalist brainwash since early age thing. I always thought the primary benefit is to have enough soldiers to mess stuff up abroad. But of course it helps to ged rid of enemies within, including the existing government structure, rules, and paradoxically constitution.
If not funding something counts as Unamerican then there is no escape from it, there are a huge number of thoughts and perspectives that the US government doesn't support financially.
Isn't this sending an Unamerican view of freedom of thought and expression? And a very dictatorial view of the American government and institutions?
All future research must abide by whatever histrionic whim the president has? I could imagine this being news from Belarus