Forever Lost: Stephen A. Smith Says Establishment Dems Must Win Back Voters From...
Barb McQuade Loses It on MS NOW As SCOTUS Torches Dem Dream of...
Masked Antifa Thug Attacks Videographers at Seattle Pride Event With a Baseball Bat
Scorn Porn: Failed ‘Journalist’ Jim Acosta Posts Video Mocking Attendance at Great America...
Man Arrested for Shooting Participants in the World Naked Bike Ride with a...
Several States Will Not Send an Official Delegation to the Great American State...
CATO Simp Notes That Agent Who Shot Renee Good Has Never Been Charged...
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey Repeals Ban on Adult Bathhouses in Honor of Pride...
Nate Silver Looks at Sales Figures for Dr. Jill Biden’s Memoir
Brad Lander's Jewish Blind Spot: Whitewashing Mamdani's Wife's Jew-Hatred for Political Su...
Nicholas ‘Dog Rape’ Kristof Names Children Who Have Died From Elon Musk’s Aid...
Make Up Your Dang Mind, Hakeem: Supreme Court Whiplash: Pack It Yesterday, Praise...
Fetterman Roasts Dem ‘Crazypants’ as Media Pulls a Classic: Total Amnesia Until the...
Hands Off, Bros: Muslim Grad’s Handshake Ban Goes Viral, Proving Tolerance is One-Way
Unbothered King: Justice Clarence Thomas Walks Through Capitol with Zero Drama While Media...

@NewsBusters: 'We've Recorded Over 8,000 Cases of Online Censorship'

AP Photo/Michael Dwyer, File

NewsBusters of the Media Research Center tweets that it has recorded over 8,000 cases of online censorship.

Advertisement

It is a blessing to live in a nation where the freedom of speech exists.

Online censorship is a double-sided coin. On the one hand, online media platforms are private companies and, as such, hold rights to make business decisions. On the other hand, companies that purport themselves to be marketplaces of online communication and information dissemination should allow communication and information dissemination.

Widely used media platforms bear a particular responsibility to maintain credibility on this issue. Though they are their own companies and conduct their own business, part of that business is properly stewarding the power and influence they hold. Perhaps they are "too big" to censor. If a major media platform selectively censors certain content, that selective censorship has a disproportional impact on other media and communication in general. When content that should not be censored is censored, there is an uneven disruption in the flow of communication.

A debate can be had about how, in practice, needed censorship and free speech should be balanced.

Advertisement

Some censorship is needed. If any platform, large or small, operates under the guideline of not allowing certain vulgar or otherwise distasteful content, that can, within reason, be a basis for censorship enforcement. A problem arises when an objective censorship guideline is stretched to include content that is disliked by the company or censors that be. A political candidate or officeholder posting content as such is newsworthy and should not be censored. There are other exceptions, as well.

The target should be as much freedom as possible, an appropriate rule of thumb for regulation in general. Censor as little as possible rather than pull down an inordinate amount of speech on flimsy grounds.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos