TerribleToaster

August 15, 2011 at 5:03am

No, I don't (obiviously). I don't see how you can think shutting down a news service is the same as altering the actual news itself. There is no misinformation being spread to replace it nor is any news not being reported. Everyone would still hear what they heard before without the government in anyway altering what information was being spread, just how fast it can spread.

MaximumMike

August 12, 2011 at 2:23pm

>>Shutting down twitter does not suppress any persons ability to read information, post information, or do anything other than doing those actions on twitter. Does it hamper the ability to do these things? Yes. But you can still do them, so your right to the internet is not suppressed.

So, let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that limiting my speech is not censorship? Please don't argue that this doesn't limit my speech. As you yourself said, it, "hamper[s] the ability to do these things."

 

>>Facebook and Twitter are virtual public locations, thus they do fall under the category of a public location.

'Virtual,' being the key word here. I never denied that they were virtual locations. But as they don't have a physical element ( in the context of their location, I know that they have cables, hard drives, etc.), they are not prone to the same rules as physical locations. I cannot walk into Facebook and hit some guy over the head with a beer bottle and have the police show up at Facebook and drag me away. 

 

>>Going on Facebook is no different that going to a public forum with the exception that one is physical and one is virtual

 But there is a big difference- your exception.
 <nudges Toaster with a beer bottle>
See what I mean.

 

>>They are also public locations where rioting was taking place as the rioters were on twitter and Facebook.

No, the rioters were in the streets, breaking into property, looting, vandalizing, killing. They may have used a physical device at a physical location to access the internet, but that doesn't mean the riots took place on the internet. Let's suppose one of them had an Android device with a feed from the Weather Channel on it. Does that mean the riots took place at the Weather Channel? Certainly not. You will surely argue that the difference is that they didn't discuss their plans for rioting on the Weather Channel's website, but that these things did take place on Twitter and Facebook. And you would be correct in noting that difference. But what you must realize here is that what took place was "speech about rioting" which is not the same thing as "rioting itself".

Let's look at a different crime. Say I post on Facebook that I am going to go rob a bank. Then I go rob that bank. Did I rob the bank on the internet? No more so than if I had posted my plans in a newspaper. Now, lets say I pull up outside the bank with my aircard-enabled laptop and use the internet to hack the bank's security systems and unlock the vault. Then I go inside and rob the bank. Did I rob the bank on the internet? In a manner of speaking, yes. But more concisely, I used the internet as a tool to help me rob the bank. The robbery itself took place at the physical address of the bank. Now, lets use an analogy more similar to our current situation. Let's  say I used the internet solely for the purpose of discussing and organizing my bank robbery with the other thugs who would be helping me. Did I rob the bank on the internet? No, not any more so than I robbed the bank on my gun. 

I know that the internet can be a confusing subject because it can be used in so many ways. Many times we think of it in terms of physical locations because many aspects of the internet are like that. But other aspects are not like physical locations at all. Wolfram Alpha is a good example in my opinion. It's  more like a calculator on steroids. It helps when speaking about the internet to think in context. In this context, it does not make sense to refer to Facebook as a place, but as a utility.

 

>>The internet is the tool/utility (that you have pointed out that the UN considers a human right to have) that allows you access to these locations.

 We agree on this point, though it escapes me how this helps your argument.

 

>>Cherry picking someone who already agrees with you as and labeling them as a third party does nothing to actually have a third party get involved. 
Also argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority). 

You got me. Perhaps it was in poor taste, but this comment wasn't so much about the appeal to authority as it was about finding a sarcastic way to point out the fact the we were debating an aspect of the article that was a given in the first place. That being said, I acknowledge that Brad could be just as wrong as any of the rest of us. However, he is a professional writer and censorship is most assuredly a part of his daily duties. He must decide which stories are worth writing about and which are not, a form of censorship. As such, his opinions cannot be lightly discarded. If I were leaning entirely on Brad to prove my point you would be right in saying I was discredited. However, that does not mean that his opinions do not help to strengthen my position.

 

>>and I question how being a professional journalist qualifies a person as a expert on legal manners such as censorship

 The fact that we are discussing the legal status of blocking access to portions of the internet as censorship is news to me. In light of this revelation, all prior conversation can be thrown out the window, as it is all irrelevant. No one has cited a single source discussing the legal qualities of censorship. If this is to be the direction of the conversation, I will take my exit now. If I am to look to the government as an authority on censorship, then anything can be censored. All the government has to do is say that this type of activity does not qualify as censorship and that type of activity does not qualify. No thanks.

 

>>as an answer is inherently false. You need a majority of legitimate experts in order to appeal to an authority.

 Yes, if they are to be the final say on the issue. But if you have given ample evidence, not contingent on said authority, to demonstrate the factuality of your premise, then there is nothing wrong with noting that an expert also came to the same conclusion you did. But throw out the opinion of Brad Chacos if you like. It doesn't change anything.

 

>> Mike, you have not posted anything which shows that this logically must be censorship (no examples, etc).

Umm does logical reasoning qaulify? Also, I challenge you to reread my posts. They are rife with examples. But if examples are the criteria for disqualification, where are yours? Please show one example of something similar that was not qualified as censorship.

 

>>Your sound logic has so far mostly consisted of simply saying "No, it's the same, [insert analogy]". That's not logic.

Your over-simplification of my arguments does me no justice. I make no attempt to refute this statement as anyone can read my posts and see for himself that what you are saying is false. Also, said analogies are very reminiscent of said missing examples.

 

>>Why is it censorship? Your ability to speak isn't suppressed. The only thing that is even truly hampered is your ability to gather large groups of people together, and that's only hampered, not suppressed (you can still do it).

Oh, I see. We're not suppressing your speech, we're just "hampering" it, which is totally fine. How patronizing. How about the fact that many people use Facebook as a news source? And I'm not talking about the links to articles on news sites that get recycled on Facebook. I'm talking about people who use it to keep up with what is going on in their community and local circles. There is a ton of information of this nature that gets dissiminated on Facebook and Facebook only. It's not reposted anywhere else. People who read it don't have any other place to get it. That information is being suppressed. For you to deny this is an outright lie. The only thing you can even say at this point is that it is an unfortunate byproduct of the government's justified censorship of the looters. But weren't you just handing it to some guy for condoning the actions of LulzSec because he believed it served the greater good. But here you are saying pretty much the same thing.

 

>>If you don't want to contiune this debate because you find it upsetting or for any other reason, that is fine. But I will never agree to disagree on something that should have a logical conclusion.

If you want to be logical, then I'm sure we can continue, unless of course you insist on discussing the legal status of the topic. But that is contingent that you play nice. You accused me of cherry picking an authority, but you've cherry picked my statements and left out much of the meat, and then accused me of saying nothing. On several occasions I have drawn the comparison of shutting down Twitter and Facebook  to that of shutting down a major newspaper, criminal activity by the newspaper warranting its shutdown notwhithstanding. You have ignored this argument and others. So tell me, do you think it's ok for the government to shut down a major newspaper, like the NY Times, because it feels its in the public interest? Do you feel such an action would be a form of censorship?