Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt.  We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt.  It is weak sauce.  Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt.  He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.

Your problem - and ours - is that most Americans disagree with this (our) view about the assassination. The 6th floor museum just can't ignore this fact. We can lament it, curse it, scream about it but that doesn't make it go away. They need to consider this fact and include it in their exhibits.

There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.

As with the 6th Floor Museum, the response to conspiracy theories is not to ignore them but answer them with more speech. After all, isn't that what we're trying to do here? I used to be a conspiracy believer (the single bullet explanation didn't make sense but I was misled) and over time changed my mind. I can't point to an article or a book that did this; but it's clear that the more "speech" on the assassination I was exposed to made me change my mind. That's how it works.

[Andrew Mason]

There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legally liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability for removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.

[Richard Smith]

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legal liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability from removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.

The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder.  And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives.  The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example.  There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.  If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.  There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship.  Sadly that day has passed.  Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share.  A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media.  It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.

[Andrew Mason]

The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder.  And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives.  The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example.  There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.

I hate to break it to you Richard but Fox News does not always present the truth. The reason responsible news media is not covering the Hunter Biden story is because there is no story and there may never be one.  It is not censorship.  You are talking like a CT.

The state must not engage in fishing expeditions to see if it can dig up evidence against a person that someone suspects did something wrong.  They may do that in Russia.  If the FBI receives a specific complaint with evidence that Hunter Biden did something illegal, the FBI will decide whether the complain merits serious investigation. If it does, it will investigate and if sufficient evidence is found charges will be laid.  Responsible news organizations don't talk about FBI investigations until a charge is laid.

If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.  There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship.  Sadly that day has passed.  Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share.  A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media.  It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.

You have it backwards.  A free but responsible public media is an essential component of democracy.  Otherwise, media platforms become instruments of propaganda.  This is why Congress was all over Facebook and other social media platforms for not policing their data and allowing their platforms to be used for promulgating Russian hoaxes.  Congress was hinting that in return for Safe Harbour laws given to internet service providers the public is expecting some level of control over abuse.  What is wrong with holding mass social media platforms to a minimal level of responsible journalism?  Or do you think that the internet equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre should be protected free speech?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legally liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability for removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.

The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.

Nobody thinks (I don't think?) that if these allegations involved Donald Trump, Jr. and his father - either now or five years ago - that they would have suppressed the story. Do you? We've heard all sorts of allegations about Trump for the past four years. None were suppressed.

Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

[Gerry Down]

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

Then you voted for the media.

[Martin Weidmann]

The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.

Nobody thinks (I don't think?) that if these allegations involved Donald Trump, Jr. and his father - either now or five years ago - that they would have suppressed the story. Do you? We've heard all sorts of allegations about Trump for the past four years. None were suppressed.

Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.

Making allegations is easy. Way too easy.... The Republicans made all sorts of allegations against Hillary Clinton and nothing ever became of them. Although she was never prosecuted and convicted for anything, her political career was destroyed. It was trial by media.

As Andrew Mason correctly pointed out, it's up to law enforcement to determine if a crime was committed or not. The allegations made against Hunter Biden are not yet proven and no credible evidence has so far been provided by the Republicans, yet they insist to have unverifiable allegations be made public by the media for their own political purposes in much the same way as they are now claiming all sorts of massive voter fraud where there was none.

Refusing to play their game is not censorship, it's doing the right thing. If the allegations against Hunter Biden or about the voter fraud are proven in court there is plenty of opportunity to report about it at that time.