When talking about censorship in these places, we should consider the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance.
Given recent events vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure that something a whole lot worse than being 'disappeared' happens to you. I hear the authorities there are not above using chainsaws to resolve the differences they might have with you.
Put another way, is it better if they feed you an exceptional mean before they kill you?
In the end, focusing on the how's instead of the why and the concrete fact they did is just a way for others to to manipulate people into feeling one way or another (or more of either) instead of just taking the hard line that it's unacceptable in any and every form.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not accusing you of manipulating people, just stating that it's just a common tactic in general.
What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws? No way in hell would I sign up for that.
> What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws
Your notions of national sovereignty and individual freedom are so terrible,
I don’t know if I should even respond.
Individual sovereignty supersedes governmental authority in a civil-libertarian moral-political framework. No government has any sort of moral right to be violent against a person for speech.
And the concept of national sovereignty is a farce. Countries like China and SA are not even democracies, so by respecting their “sovereignty” you’re respecting the minorities in power over those countries.
But even democracies have absolutely no right to claim sovereignty — having 60% of a country’s vote will never legitimize erasing fundamental human freedoms. (Or else everything the NSDAP did would be morally A-OK.)
A general moral operating principle to apply when analyzing political issues is the “zero aggression principle”: https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org
- remove the content
- face legal repercussions (likely ending in not being able to do business in SA or being forced to do the first option)
SA can enforce its will through military force, and that's about the most practical claim to sovereignty you can get.
Also, is there a practical difference between the NAP and the ZAP?
no one is what i think they are getting at
Personally, it's tiring and the information density is too low. And sometimes the logic of the analogy doesn't work, and they pretend the analogy proves something even though analogies never do, they can only be used to illustrate.
Oliver, Bee, all thr political comedy shows do the same thing. I can't figure out if I think Jon Stewart's show was better or if I was just younger and not tired of that style yet.
These newer shoes exist mainly to speak to the already converted.
I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?
Exactly, but then being funny renders you unable to talk about anything but funny stuff.
Political Commentary is also not something to be rationed - as per se, it would be extremely misguided (and illegal, in the US) to regulate who can be televised on a given matter (Although I assume that you mean "we" as in society rather than the state?)
This was more of a copyright claim than censorship.
They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that.
“We wanted to show you footage from the House of Commons but due to a 1743 law we can’t so here it is reenacted with sock puppets...”
This would’ve been even better in my book.
Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.
But censorship is censorship, and when we refuse to call it by its name, we allow ourselves to forget that there is a powerful force controlling what we can see and consume. That kind of power must be checked, and checked always, and we must constantly re-affirm our consent to that power just as often.
This is HBO likely not being familiar with obscure British legislation as some others have pointed out they had to use dogs instead of actual
SCTOUS footage as there is a US law that forbids footage of the Supreme Court from being used.
The fact that you even consider this censorship only proves you likely never experienced what true censorship means.
There’s no law enforcing this except those which give the judges full control over their proceedings. They could let CNN in tomorrow if they so decided.
The speech isn't being restricted. The background footage is.
Even if it is a stupid law.
Why should taxpayer-funded creations be copyrighted? They should be in the public domain by default, like in the U.S.
This stuff is just generally odd.
HBO just didn’t realized it when making this programme, they have had to avoid other similar limitations by using dogs instead of supreme justices due to similar restrictions in the US.
I wish we would adopt this, not that I watch live television anymore though but plenty of people still do.
"Joe Smith once let his dog crap on a lawn, Joe did not pick it up, do you want Joe in office? Paid for by the committee to help the group to help the council to elect Jane Doe"
Next commercial break
"Jane Doe uses 3 cans of hairspray a week yet claims to care about the environment. Jane only cares about her hair. Paid for the by the cabal to support the organization of the committee of electing Joe Smith'.
> In 1738 the Commons fought back, declaring that it was a "high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege" to report what was said in the Chamber, even when it was in recess. 
“The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, and c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267), which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267), which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of.”
Not saying the saudis aren’t forward thinking about what to do when demand decreases, but so many folks do believe that oil = cars and going electric means we don’t need oil.
Aside, I would like to see the actual justification behind how the episode constitutes cyber crime aside from “because we said so”
Not so sure about this?
Reality is, MBS can do whatever he wants, global opinion or no global opinion. That's been made pretty clear recently.
I mean really, who's gonna stop him?
For those who want to see the episode
That makes it substantially better.
Plus, Saudia Arabia is not known as a bastion of personal liberty. But that's besides the point; they are completely entitled to perform censorship within their own borders. It's simply your opinion (which I happen to agree with, but it is not a fact nonetheless) that it's bad for them to have censored it within their own country.
It might not be just, or fair, for residents of that country, but it is reasonable.
The moral question is whether American companies should help foreign governments shut down free-speech. Just like google in China. And the consensus seems to be "No."
What we (speaking as a fan of western still liberalism and rule of law) in the west need is to be better able to provide a full throated explanation and defense of our principles and value prop. There seems to be a very real movement toward an alternative authoritarian world view based on the promise of prosperity and stability through social control, social control that takes full advantage of the enormous surveillance and monitoring capabilities of modern technology.
> And the consensus seems to be "No."
Consensus is completely irrelevant when answering a moral question, unless it instrumentally affects the moral calculus.
We have the U.S.S.R., Arab Spring, and the French Revolution as fine examples of the country going to shit.
If you’re a dictator and want to transition your country to democracy (I’m not sure why you’d call that morally good, but let’s go with it), you don’t make the first thing you do to allow free speech. Free speech shouldn’t come until after you have elections.
It’s entirely within companies’ ability to not comply but it means pulling out of the US or Saudi Arabia or whatever country is making demands.
In the 90s the dream of Sealand is that it would allow companies to not be forced to do stuff like take down content. That didn’t work out. Mostly because I think companies enjoy making more money the easier way.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email firstname.lastname@example.org and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
As I understand it Netflix really doesn't have the option of taking a principled stand here (let me know if I'm wrong) due its financial responsibilities toward shareholders.
If they had incorporated as a public-benefit corporation would they have additional freedom to say "We won't participate in this market on ethical grounds?"
Did you read the bottom half of the entry's summary or the entry itself? Specifically:
> In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly
> The general legal position today is that the business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole.
and quotes from a number of law journals:
> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law.
> the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases.
Edit: 2017, not this year
> When pharmaceutical company Depomed Inc. of the U.S. said this month it is fielding federal and state inquiries over its marketing of opioid painkillers, a stock drop was likely to follow.
> But it was less expected, legal experts say, that shareholders would then sue the company for securities-law violations, alleging that Depomed made false and misleading statements over a more than two-year period leading up to the Aug. 7 announcement in its earnings statement.
A lawsuit about making false statements is entirely different than a lawsuit saying a company is insufficiently profit-seeking. Unless the article broke down how many of those record lawsuits were actually over low earnings (which I can't tell), I don't think this shows anything.
I think I disagree with you a little even regarding false statements suits, though: Just as a thought experiment: let’s say you lose millions in company X stock because they pull out of a market you think they should have stayed in. I would think going through the company’s public statements and claiming that you were mislead about their commitment to said market would be a decent angle from which to attack them. But that’s just thinking out loud, and I am no lawyer.