honestly, there are tons of people who are weirdly anti-gay even when you'd expect them not to be: more than a few tankies, for example, despite their incredibly economically leftist political...
honestly, there are tons of people who are weirdly anti-gay even when you'd expect them not to be: more than a few tankies, for example, despite their incredibly economically leftist political beliefs. you're just less likely to run into them than people who use the bible or the quran or some other holy book or religious doctrine to justify their homophobia.
That's just rude. This is legal behaviour in the USA, where the show is aired. There should be no basis for a public broadcaster to refuse to depict legal behaviour on its network.
That's just rude. This is legal behaviour in the USA, where the show is aired. There should be no basis for a public broadcaster to refuse to depict legal behaviour on its network.
I'm sure you know this, but the anti-censorship free speech crowd don't seem to mind when the government violates free speech, just private companies and only when it's their preferred type of...
I'm sure you know this, but the anti-censorship free speech crowd don't seem to mind when the government violates free speech, just private companies and only when it's their preferred type of speech. And this would qualify as government, right, since it's publicly funded television?
I mind when the government violates free speech. Private companies can do whatever they want, for any reason, and I don't consider that a violation of my free speech rights (or censorship) because...
I mind when the government violates free speech. Private companies can do whatever they want, for any reason, and I don't consider that a violation of my free speech rights (or censorship) because I don't have any rights to a voice on a privately-owned forum.
However, I do have the right to free speech without being punished or silenced by the government. And that includes my right to not distribute your speech through my platform.
(See my comment for what I think about Alabama Public Television being government-funded.)
I was thinking of that myself. With how hard the anti-censorship free speech crowd explodes whenever someone dares to suggest removing actually dangerous content from their platform, it is rather...
I was thinking of that myself. With how hard the anti-censorship free speech crowd explodes whenever someone dares to suggest removing actually dangerous content from their platform, it is rather mysterious that you don't hear a peep from them on this...
There was a thread on HN that was flagged just recently because it discussed the current insanity of making your kids drink bleach in attempt to cure autism, and immediately you had people worried about censorship. The free speech crowd is entirely transparent about what they actually believe.
As a quick primer, here's the full text of the 1st amendment: I would classify myself as being a member of the hardcore anti-censorship free speech crowd. At the same time, I completely understand...
As a quick primer, here's the full text of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would classify myself as being a member of the hardcore anti-censorship free speech crowd. At the same time, I completely understand that privately-owned forums (such as Tildes) aren't bound by the 1st amendment, and therefore the owners of the forum can do as they wish, including permanently banning any user. I don't personally consider that censorship, just as a magazine not publishing your article isn't censorship: it's not required for anybody else to listen to you (or to help others hear what you have to say.)
That said, if Alabama Public Television is funded by state tax funds (as it appears to be, at least in part), then they should be bound by the 1st amendment. However, deciding to not distribute content is not a violation of the first amendment (even if it's a fully government-funded office doing so.) Note that the 1st amendment makes no mention of the government controlling its own speech; it only requires that the government is not allowed to outlaw or otherwise attempt to control the speech of its people. As long as content creators are able to create and share their work freely without being stopped by the government, nobody is violating the constitution.
All of that said, it's super shitty of Alabama Public Television to selectively not air content that the owners personally disagree with. But doing so is constitutional, and it should remain constitutional. That's the entire point of free speech: nobody should be prevented from speaking their mind, no matter how much I, personally, dislike it.
At the end of the day, any privately-owned forum can choose to not allow another person to have a voice. They have the ability to silence anybody they choose for any reason. If they don't want people talking about the best way to feed children bleach, they have the right to delete those comments and ban the people involved. In the same way, if you go into a general store and hold a conversation about feeding your children poison, being kicked out of the store isn't censorship. You're free to buy your own property and say whatever you want there, and the government can't stop you. It's not censorship if you have a voice, even if nobody wants to give you a platform.
What APT is doing here may not run afoul of the explicit words of the 1st amendment, but I think they could be seen as performing viewpoint discrimination. They've also done this before: If they...
That said, if Alabama Public Television is funded by state tax funds (as it appears to be, at least in part), then they should be bound by the 1st amendment. However, deciding to not distribute content is not a violation of the first amendment (even if it's a fully government-funded office doing so.) Note that the 1st amendment makes no mention of the government controlling its own speech; it only requires that the government is not allowed to outlaw or otherwise attempt to control the speech of its people. As long as content creators are able to create and share their work freely without being stopped by the government, nobody is violating the constitution.
What APT is doing here may not run afoul of the explicit words of the 1st amendment, but I think they could be seen as performing viewpoint discrimination.
In 2005, APT pulled an episode of "Postcards From Buster," a spinoff of "Arthur," in which the character Buster met a girl who had two mothers.
If they rebroadcast every episode of Arthur except ones they dislike on political grounds, I think you could certainly make the case that they're engaged in viewpoint discrimination and not "time, place and manner" restrictions.
Yeah, I don't know enough about the specific circumstances or discrimination laws to present anything more than a very broad overview of the 1st amendment and my thoughts about it. It looks like...
Yeah, I don't know enough about the specific circumstances or discrimination laws to present anything more than a very broad overview of the 1st amendment and my thoughts about it. It looks like APT's gotten themselves into the hot seat again, especially when they repeat the exact same move that got them in trouble last time.
If there was ever any doubt about Alabama's stance on the "separation of church and state", I think this pretty much put it's to rest.
honestly, there are tons of people who are weirdly anti-gay even when you'd expect them not to be: more than a few tankies, for example, despite their incredibly economically leftist political beliefs. you're just less likely to run into them than people who use the bible or the quran or some other holy book or religious doctrine to justify their homophobia.
That's just rude. This is legal behaviour in the USA, where the show is aired. There should be no basis for a public broadcaster to refuse to depict legal behaviour on its network.
I'm sure you know this, but the anti-censorship free speech crowd don't seem to mind when the government violates free speech, just private companies and only when it's their preferred type of speech. And this would qualify as government, right, since it's publicly funded television?
When the government violates free speech to support their views and suppress others' views.
I mind when the government violates free speech. Private companies can do whatever they want, for any reason, and I don't consider that a violation of my free speech rights (or censorship) because I don't have any rights to a voice on a privately-owned forum.
However, I do have the right to free speech without being punished or silenced by the government. And that includes my right to not distribute your speech through my platform.
(See my comment for what I think about Alabama Public Television being government-funded.)
Yes but what about the broadcast spectrum? Private Broadcasters hold a license to use them, but they remain a public good.
I was thinking of that myself. With how hard the anti-censorship free speech crowd explodes whenever someone dares to suggest removing actually dangerous content from their platform, it is rather mysterious that you don't hear a peep from them on this...
There was a thread on HN that was flagged just recently because it discussed the current insanity of making your kids drink bleach in attempt to cure autism, and immediately you had people worried about censorship. The free speech crowd is entirely transparent about what they actually believe.
As a quick primer, here's the full text of the 1st amendment:
I would classify myself as being a member of the hardcore anti-censorship free speech crowd. At the same time, I completely understand that privately-owned forums (such as Tildes) aren't bound by the 1st amendment, and therefore the owners of the forum can do as they wish, including permanently banning any user. I don't personally consider that censorship, just as a magazine not publishing your article isn't censorship: it's not required for anybody else to listen to you (or to help others hear what you have to say.)
That said, if Alabama Public Television is funded by state tax funds (as it appears to be, at least in part), then they should be bound by the 1st amendment. However, deciding to not distribute content is not a violation of the first amendment (even if it's a fully government-funded office doing so.) Note that the 1st amendment makes no mention of the government controlling its own speech; it only requires that the government is not allowed to outlaw or otherwise attempt to control the speech of its people. As long as content creators are able to create and share their work freely without being stopped by the government, nobody is violating the constitution.
All of that said, it's super shitty of Alabama Public Television to selectively not air content that the owners personally disagree with. But doing so is constitutional, and it should remain constitutional. That's the entire point of free speech: nobody should be prevented from speaking their mind, no matter how much I, personally, dislike it.
At the end of the day, any privately-owned forum can choose to not allow another person to have a voice. They have the ability to silence anybody they choose for any reason. If they don't want people talking about the best way to feed children bleach, they have the right to delete those comments and ban the people involved. In the same way, if you go into a general store and hold a conversation about feeding your children poison, being kicked out of the store isn't censorship. You're free to buy your own property and say whatever you want there, and the government can't stop you. It's not censorship if you have a voice, even if nobody wants to give you a platform.
What APT is doing here may not run afoul of the explicit words of the 1st amendment, but I think they could be seen as performing viewpoint discrimination.
They've also done this before:
If they rebroadcast every episode of Arthur except ones they dislike on political grounds, I think you could certainly make the case that they're engaged in viewpoint discrimination and not "time, place and manner" restrictions.
Yeah, I don't know enough about the specific circumstances or discrimination laws to present anything more than a very broad overview of the 1st amendment and my thoughts about it. It looks like APT's gotten themselves into the hot seat again, especially when they repeat the exact same move that got them in trouble last time.
Agreed. But as others have pointed out, this is a government funded broadcasting company.