Cranefist wrote: I absolutely cannot believe how much this thread is fostering the creepy nerd image.
If you don't get what's wrong with these sorts of rape promoting books, don't come crying when you can't get a date through the stink of creep.
I'd bet dimes to dollars all the nerd on this thread acting like there are two sides to this conversation would probably defend the idea that late teens are fair game and that there isn't anything wrong with Japanese school girl fetish cartoons.
If you find yourself on this thread trying to explore this issue, I'd encourage you to go ride a bike or take a cooking class and get out of the house.
Cranefist wrote: Being a creep is a disease, and while it is hard to cure, you can learn to suppress your symptoms. Please try. This is, ironically, probably the most anti-social, empathy-less content in the entire thread.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Cranefist wrote: If you don't get what's wrong with these sorts of rape promoting books, don't come crying when you can't get a date through the stink of creep. Man, I guess wanting to have a debate on the facts instead of knee-jerk reacting to something and making a boatload of assumptions makes me a creepy nerd that will never get a date.
Will you break the news to my girlfriend of 9 years?
Steve wrote: They're not listing anymore dating guides. Presumably they're going to be a little more rigorous in their vetting processes too.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
And yes, making a blanket ban to dating guides is performing surgery with a malfunctioning wobbly chainsaw. It doesn't even get to the root of the problem which wasn't dating guides, but producing offensive content, which as I said, could be in a million other genres of books. There is nothing inherently offensive about a dating guide so to ban them as if they were the problem is ludicrous.
meatrace wrote: Cranefist wrote: If you don't get what's wrong with these sorts of rape promoting books, don't come crying when you can't get a date through the stink of creep. Man, I guess wanting to have a debate on the facts instead of knee-jerk reacting to something and making a boatload of assumptions makes me a creepy nerd that will never get a date.
Will you break the news to my girlfriend of 9 years? I can't believe the shit I read in this thread. I can't believe there is a debate completely run out of feigned ignorance. Anyone who clicks this thread, reads the OP, and then sees a discussion on it will know what people who played PF are about.
It is disgusting lawn crapping, crapping on roll playing games. You want a debate, go debate a real topic - Not about rape manuals.
Cranefist wrote: Anyone who clicks this thread, reads the OP, and then sees a discussion on it will know what people who played PF are about. Really?
Here are the facts from the Kickstarter blog.
The guy promoted his material to his target audience on Reddit, it included information that, if it had been in the original Kickstarter offer, it wouldn't have been accepted - information that promoted sexual harassment and assault with a large dose of misogyny. The report process didn't get the information high enough fast enough and they didn't make a decision fast enough, so it's all gone through. They are attempted to make right by preventing this from happening again - they are reviewing their vetting and review systems and stopping seduction guides from going through their site, and donating a very large amount to a charity that undoes the damage that the kind of advice this guy was promoting on Reddit does.
Freedom of speech is only about speech not being censored by the government . In private spaces, like websites and business, they can censor what they like for the most part - Paizo is free to censor on it's website, and does, and Kickstarter is free to choose what is does and does not allow on it's website.
As a woman-bodied person, who has been around the dating block (gladly off of it), I've never said no or pushed someone away to get them to try harder. A lot of his 'advice' has been done to me at one time or another and it isn't nice or seductive, it's hurtful, painful, and intimidating, even more so when I've been interested in a person who thinks my interest has taken away my right to my body. Nothing in the guide promotes enthusiastic consent, why would anyone want anything less than that?
Tinkergoth Pat Robertson is a right wing American evangelical TV minister. He's had a large hold over the Christian right but it's been fading over the last year or so along with his health. I doubt Kickstarter is much influenced by him.
Cranefist wrote: It is disgusting lawn crapping, crapping on roll playing games. You want a debate, go debate a real topic - Not about rape manuals. Ahh, but that IS the debate, whether or not it is a rape manual. It's not. It's certainly a douchebag manual, but, as Anklebiter has insisted, it has specific warnings in the book not to venture into that territory.
Unless you believe, as some in this thread have explicitly stated, that merely touching someone without express permission is equivalent to rape. Then you're just a loon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If they want to ban him from making future materials that's fine. If they want to comb over kickstarters before they're posted, fine. But this guy didn't destroy the fabric of society. Posting a "manual" on sexual assault by telling people to go put your dick in their hand is no more a real manual than a murder manual that tells people to go hit people with a bat. It's not providing any insight that makes people more "efficient" at sexual assault or enables them to get away with it. Its just a stupid troll book.
Banning dating guides is a silly solution to a potential problem.
meatrace wrote: Cranefist wrote: It is disgusting lawn crapping, crapping on roll playing games. You want a debate, go debate a real topic - Not about rape manuals. Ahh, but that IS the debate, whether or not it is a rape manual. It's not. It's certainly a douchebag manual, but, as Anklebiter has insisted, it has specific warnings in the book not to venture into that territory.
Unless you believe, as some in this thread have explicitly stated, that merely touching someone without express permission is equivalent to rape. Then you're just a loon. You are disgusting.
meatrace wrote: Cranefist wrote: It is disgusting lawn crapping, crapping on roll playing games. You want a debate, go debate a real topic - Not about rape manuals. Ahh, but that IS the debate, whether or not it is a rape manual. It's not. It's certainly a douchebag manual, but, as Anklebiter has insisted, it has specific warnings in the book not to venture into that territory.
Unless you believe, as some in this thread have explicitly stated, that merely touching someone without express permission is equivalent to rape. Then you're just a loon. Not rape, no.
It is assault though. And the "push her up against the wall and kissed her caveman-style" bit is definitely sexual assault.
The repeated warnings to back off if she says no, come with all sorts of disclaimers about distinguishing a real "no" from the nos you're supposed to ignore.
kmal2t wrote: If they want to ban him from making future materials that's fine. If they want to comb over kickstarters before they're posted, fine. But this guy didn't destroy the fabric of society. Posting a "manual" on sexual assault by telling people to go put your dick in their hand is no more a real manual than a murder manual that tells people to go hit people with a bat. It's not providing any insight that makes people more "efficient" at sexual assault or enables them to get away with it. Its just a stupid troll book.
Banning dating guides is a silly solution to a potential problem.
As far as I could see, they're banning "seduction guides", which is a little different from "dating guides".
Pretty much all the seduction guides I've seen or heard of are variations on the same crap. All the same techniques and terminology. Some go a little farther towards sexual assault than others, but they're all pretty bad.
Everyone in this thread needs to take a step back and calm down. There's no need for insults or name calling.
But on the topic of this thread (as assumed by the name, not by the singular example posted in the OP), I fully agree. Companies that are asking for money for new projects while millions of dollars in debt probably need to get off kickstarter. Likewise companies that are a year plus behind on delivering the rewards for prior kickstarters shouldn't be doing new kickstarters.
I don't see much of a difference as dating guides are usually just "tricks" to use on women (using cliche pop-psychology) that are supposed to get you laid.
It doesn't matter if you're fat, ugly, dress poorly, and have no sense of sincerity, if you use these "tricks" women can't resist you! I have a "mint" condition '97 Mercury Sable I would love to sell the type of dolts that buy these books.
Cranefist wrote: meatrace wrote: Cranefist wrote: It is disgusting lawn crapping, crapping on roll playing games. You want a debate, go debate a real topic - Not about rape manuals. Ahh, but that IS the debate, whether or not it is a rape manual. It's not. It's certainly a douchebag manual, but, as Anklebiter has insisted, it has specific warnings in the book not to venture into that territory.
Unless you believe, as some in this thread have explicitly stated, that merely touching someone without express permission is equivalent to rape. Then you're just a loon. You are disgusting. You probably need to take your own advice. Go outside. Go ride a bike. Go take a cooking class. You are comporting yourself poorly. It would probably be better if you did something else.
kmal2t wrote: I don't see much of a difference as dating guides are usually just "tricks" to use on women (using cliche pop-psychology) that are supposed to get you laid. Well, there lies the crux of the matter, I think. The book from the Kickstarter is basically a "how to pick up chicks and get laid" manual. That's completely different from a dating guide which might teach you how to actually talk to someone and develop a relationship that's something beyond just "scoring." Something that teaches etiquette, social skills, and the basic building blocks of communication is hardly "pop psychology."
Whatever else you might take away from the things he's posted online, there seems to be a lack of genuine concern for the woman's take on things. It pretty much assumes that if you do things the way the guide suggests she'll just dig it and go along. That's one of the many places to take umbrage. If you don't start with a modicum of respect for the other person as a human being and instead look at it as a conquest and basically a way to get what you want...well, therein lies the problem.
I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit.
kmal2t wrote: I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit. Judging from the writer of the material's responce I dont think it was intended as satire.
Can you post the quote of what you're referring to?
Here you go
http://pastebin.com/zwHYzCZe
Long story short he is 100% serious but claims the parts are being quoted out of context.
kmal2t wrote: I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit. Do you have any actual evidence for it being satire?
From what little I know, it seems pretty much straightforward for the genre.
kmal2t wrote: I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit. Yeah, if you look at the stuff he posts on Reddit and elsewhere, this guy isn't joking.
Ken Hoinsky wrote: I spent the past two years as a moderator on /r/seduction volunteering my time to teach redditors how to get better with women. I was very unhappy with the state of dating advice. It's mostly meaningless self-help platitudes or cleverly-disguised misogyny without much in between
I took it upon myself to write a new guide to rectify this problem. I started posting a step-by-step method on reddit last year. I called it Above The Game.
He actually thinks his book is not "cleverly-disguised misogyny" and was genuinely surprised that his Kickstarter caused as much anger as it did.
thejeff wrote:
Not rape, no.
It is assault though. And the "push her up against the wall and kissed her caveman-style" bit is definitely sexual assault.
The repeated warnings to back off if she says no, come with all sorts of disclaimers about distinguishing a real "no" from the nos you're supposed to ignore.
Agreed, it is sexual assault. That's a fair cop.
With the proviso that sexual assault =/= rape. The problem being that sexual assault, as a legal term, can mean anything from merely unwanted touching to rape.
Let me also point out that I don't think it's vital to the opposition's argument that this book is indeed a "rape manual", but rather that it explicitly condones illegal activity and is actively misogynistic. Which it definitely does. That ought to be enough to justify it being banned from Kickstarter.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Shadowborn wrote: kmal2t wrote: I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit. Yeah, if you look at the stuff he posts on Reddit and elsewhere, this guy isn't joking.
Ken Hoinsky wrote: I spent the past two years as a moderator on /r/seduction volunteering my time to teach redditors how to get better with women. I was very unhappy with the state of dating advice. It's mostly meaningless self-help platitudes or cleverly-disguised misogyny without much in between
I took it upon myself to write a new guide to rectify this problem. I started posting a step-by-step method on reddit last year. I called it Above The Game.
He actually thinks his book is not "cleverly-disguised misogyny" and was genuinely surprised that his Kickstarter caused as much anger as it did. See that's where I interpreted it as satire. He calls them "meaningless self-help platitudes or cleverly-disguised mysogny without much in between " and then proceeds to give stupid, over-the-top advice like staring in the mirror at yourself for 60 seconds, maintaining gratuitous contact, and putting your d**k in her hand.
thejeff wrote: kmal2t wrote: I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit. Do you have any actual evidence for it being satire?
From what little I know, it seems pretty much straightforward for the genre. Well, that's the problem with irony isn't it? If it's too blatant, it's not funny, and if it's too true to life it's indistinguishable from the genuine article. We are talking about satire, not parody; parody is the when it's blatantly obvious. There's no doubt to me that A Modest Proposal flew well over the heads of many reading it that were not patiently tutored to discern irony and satire from earnest prose.
However, I agree, this is not likely satire. However, believing it satire was my first reaction because of how over the top it is. Perhaps this man is indeed Swiftian in his rapier-like wit.
kmal2t wrote:
See that's where I interpreted it as satire. He calls them "meaningless self-help platitudes or cleverly-disguised mysogny without much in between " and then proceeds to give stupid, over-the-top advice like staring in the mirror at yourself for 60 seconds, maintaining gratuitous contact, and putting your d**k in her hand.
And I would agree with you if he'd been willing to cop to it when he issued his statement about the whole fiasco. However, he mentions nothing about satire and defends the methods in his book. Seems a bit too far to take satire if no one is really getting it.
meatrace wrote: thejeff wrote: kmal2t wrote: I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit. Do you have any actual evidence for it being satire?
From what little I know, it seems pretty much straightforward for the genre. Well, that's the problem with irony isn't it? If it's too blatant, it's not funny, and if it's too true to life it's indistinguishable from the genuine article. We are talking about satire, not parody; parody is the when it's blatantly obvious. There's no doubt to me that A Modest Proposal flew well over the heads of many reading it that were not patiently tutored to discern irony and satire from earnest prose.
However, I agree, this is not likely satire. However, believing it satire was my first reaction because of how over the top it is. Perhaps this man is indeed Swiftian in his rapier-like wit. Sadly, "it's too over the top" is no longer a useful test for satire.
Some people will continue the gag and pretend to be serious even when challenged on it. I'd post a good example of it, but I know it would get flagged and removed quickly.
And something can be very over the top and be satire. It really just depends on how much "finesse" is put into it, like if its so heavy handed in message that it's just stupid. Perfect example is Idiocracy. Mike Judge is great but he was beating you over the head with the message so much that it just came off as hammy.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
kmal2t wrote: Some people will continue the gag and pretend to be serious even when challenged on it. I'd post a good example of it, but I know it would get flagged and removed quickly. Andy Kaufman's entire celebrity life.
Personally I think it's pretty damn creepy and dangerous. No means no, it's 2013 and we've established this, and if there is a sort of woman that thinks that no is actually a soft maybe then I think she should get used to being disappointed rather then encouraging boys to force themselves onto completely unwilling females. Defending this sort of behavior or even encouraging it would a big step backwards.
Yeah, but you've got to do something to distinguish yourself from the crowd you're parodying.
I've run into these kinds of pick up guides before. This is pretty much run of the mill.
It's a scam, of course. He just took the scam out of ads on porn pages onto Kickstarter. It's all about the money.
A Modest Proposal was great satire. It wouldn't have been if there was bill in Parliament proposing the same thing when he wrote it.
Kthulhu wrote: kmal2t wrote: Some people will continue the gag and pretend to be serious even when challenged on it. I'd post a good example of it, but I know it would get flagged and removed quickly. Andy Kaufman's entire celebrity life. Good call. Possibly a pioneer in the field of trolling?
thejeff wrote: A Modest Proposal was great satire. It wouldn't have been if there was bill in Parliament proposing the same thing when he wrote it. or actual cannibals.
A Modest Proposal was good satire because cannibalism was an extreme social taboo, there wasn't much chance of anyone taking the idea of eating Irish babies seriously. But here, with this topic, we still have a problem with date rape and sexual assault. It still happens. Encouraging people to force themselves on the weaker sex (and here I'm simply referring to muscle mass) is a terrible idea even if it is a joke. There are people out there that will take that idea to heart and there are already folks out there that that disregard any warnings the author added (likely to protect his own butt). This was a terrible idea and I'm glad Kickstarter killed it.
Okay then, how about Sasha Baren Coen's Borat? Coen did press junketts and talk show appearances AS Borat, continuing to spout antisemitic and misogynist hate speech.
And obviously the point was it wasn't directed at women or jews, but was meant to make fun of the backward nature of the "stan" region.
Guy Humual wrote: and if there is a sort of woman that thinks that no is actually a soft maybe then I think she should get used to being disappointed rather then encouraging boys to force themselves onto completely unwilling females. Defending this sort of behavior or even encouraging it would a big step backwards. Granted I don't have a whole lot of experience in dating (having been in a relationship, as stated, for over 9 years now) and a rather small sample set, but 50% of women I dated were this type of woman. It's hardly rare. In fact, one girl broke up with me because I was too timid to try to "convince" her over mild protestations. In other words because I took a no for a no.
The problem isn't these women, nor is it the "you need express verbal permission to touch me" crowd. It's everyone who thinks there should be one rule that applies to everyone in this situation, that includes you who are telling women that their sexual proclivities are wrong. I'd love for the world to be more simple, but it's not
meatrace wrote: Guy Humual wrote: and if there is a sort of woman that thinks that no is actually a soft maybe then I think she should get used to being disappointed rather then encouraging boys to force themselves onto completely unwilling females. Defending this sort of behavior or even encouraging it would a big step backwards. Granted I don't have a whole lot of experience in dating (having been in a relationship, as stated, for over 9 years now) and a rather small sample set, but 50% of women I dated were this type of woman. It's hardly rare. In fact, one girl broke up with me because I was too timid to try to "convince" her over mild protestations. In other words because I took a no for a no.
The problem isn't these women, nor is it the "you need express verbal permission to touch me" crowd. It's everyone who thinks there should be one rule that applies to everyone in this situation, that includes you who are telling women that their sexual proclivities are wrong. I'd love for the world to be more simple, but it's not I largely agree that it's a problem and that we'd all be better off if we weren't socialized to think that men should be the aggressors in sex and that women should play coy and say no even when they actually want to. And by "we", I mean both men and women. It is a real thing and it helps justify bad behavior.
OTOH, what happens when a guy takes a "No" that wasn't really meant as a "No" seriously? Sex doesn't happen. Both people are disappointed. Maybe a good relationship doesn't happen.
What happens when a guy assumes a serious "No" wasn't really meant seriously? Rape happens.
I'm going to continue erring on the side of caution here.
Quote: OTOH, what happens when a guy takes a "No" that wasn't really meant as a "No" seriously? Sex doesn't happen. Both people are disappointed. Maybe a good relationship doesn't happen.
What happens when a guy assumes a serious "No" wasn't really meant seriously? Rape happens.
....
....what? I think you're skipping a few steps between "No" and rape.
kmal2t wrote: Quote: OTOH, what happens when a guy takes a "No" that wasn't really meant as a "No" seriously? Sex doesn't happen. Both people are disappointed. Maybe a good relationship doesn't happen.
What happens when a guy assumes a serious "No" wasn't really meant seriously? Rape happens.
....
....what? I think you're skipping a few steps between "No" and rape. If you have sex with a woman when she says "No" it's rape.
What am I skipping?
Your first example: If a guy takes a no then he may persist and ask her again until he gets the date and eventually sex.
In your second that no then turns into I SAID NO then turns into crying and clawing and screaming for help.
There's no ambiguity here.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I didn't think for one second that it was satire. I think it is straight-up, earnest, terrible advice.
I am however, unclear about the characterization of touching without express permission as assault.
I mean, I get that Mr. Grabbyhands is a drag, but, back when I dated, before I gave in to the stink of creep, I would start the evening by maintaining a respectful distance and see how it went. If it was going well, at some in the point in the evening I would, indeed, touch her, and I don't recall ever asking, "May I touch you?"
There were a few times that, alas, I misjudged, and she was obviously cold to the touch, and I stopped touching her. Most of the time, though, we'd end up going out for a couple months, in one case living together for years, and we'd reminisce about our first date or whatever, and she would inevitably say something like "I can't believe it took so long for you to make a move."
And here it is years later and I discover that, instead of being a shy suitor, I was guilty of assault.
It's pretty disconcerting, let me tell you. Fortunately, I have Japanese tentacle porn to console me.
kmal2t wrote: Your first example: If a guy takes a no then he may persist and ask her again until he gets the date and eventually sex.
In your second that no then turns into I SAID NO then turns into crying and clawing and screaming for help.
There's no ambiguity here.
Since I was responding to "one girl broke up with me because I was too timid to try to "convince" her over mild protestations. In other words because I took a no for a no.", the first quote was not necessarily over "getting the date", it could be that or over moving from making out to actual sex. And ignoring a No at an earlier stage could be sexual assault. Not at the asking for a date stage, obviously, but later on.
For your second point, are you claiming it's only rape if it "turns into crying and clawing and screaming for help".
The line is not so clear as you think and teaching men to ignore women's Nos at any step of the way just teaches them to ignore the later ones.
If someone can't tell the difference between sliding your hand down south and her saying "No Billy. I'm not ready yet!" and what would be required to rape someone..which would be physically holding them down and forcing their legs open etc while they yell "no! please stop!" then they have a serious problem.
The line is not blurry at all. It's pretty damn clear in this case.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote: I didn't think for one second that it was satire. I think it is straight-up, earnest, terrible advice.
I am however, unclear about the characterization of touching without express permission as assault.
I mean, I get that Mr. Grabbyhands is a drag, but, back when I dated, before I gave in to the stink of creep, I would start the evening by maintaining a respectful distance and see how it went. If it was going well, at some in the point in the evening I would, indeed, touch her, and I don't recall ever asking, "May I touch you?"
There were a few times that, alas, I misjudged, and she was obviously cold to the touch, and I stopped touching her. Most of the time, though, we'd end up going out for a couple months, in one case living together for years, and we'd reminisce about our first date or whatever, and she would inevitably say something like "I can't believe it took so long for you to make a move."
And here it is years later and I discover that, instead of being a shy suitor, I was guilty of assault.
It's pretty disconcerting, let me tell you. Fortunately, I have Japanese tentacle porn to console me.
Wiki
Quote: an unlawful application of force
to the person of another
resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Quote: Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual harmful or insulting contact, regardless of the injury caused. Essentially non-consensual contact is illegal, but no one is ever going to prosecute if you stop when asked.
And yes, I'm in pretty much the same boat. In dating, we all work off of non-verbal cues and we're not always calibrated to the other person's. So you were both the shy suitor and committing assault.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kmal2t wrote: If someone can't tell the difference between sliding your hand down south and her saying "No Billy. I'm not ready yet!" and what would be required to rape someone..which would be physically holding them down and forcing their legs open etc while they yell "no! please stop!" then they have a serious problem.
The line is not blurry at all. It's pretty damn clear in this case.
OK. Then you are claiming anything short of "physically holding them down and forcing their legs open etc while they yell "no! please stop!" isn't rape.
I suggest checking the laws.
And frankly, continuing to "slide your hand down south" after she says "No Billy. I'm not ready yet!", might well be rape, depending on the details of the local laws and exactly what you do. It's certainly sexual assault. Unless of course she's just protesting for form's sake and really wants you to.
Which is my point. Blurring the line by the societal assumption, on both men's and women's parts, that sometimes No doesn't really mean No, is a problem.
meatrace wrote: Okay then, how about Sasha Baren Coen's Borat? Coen did press junketts and talk show appearances AS Borat, continuing to spout antisemitic and misogynist hate speech. I'm not a big fan of Sacha Baron Cohen but I thought his whole Borat thing was to expose ugly racism, sexism, and xenophobia that many people like to think no longer exist in our society. It's not a movie I'd pay to see. Also, it's my understanding that Sasha is Jewish himself so the whole baiting people into approving or agreeing with his (as Borat) antisemitic statements is a lot like race the comedy the Chris Rock used to do.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Before anything else, I want to make it clear that this post I'm making is purely about free speech as an issue unto itself; I'm not speaking with regard to this incident with Kickstarter whatsoever.
seetobe wrote: Freedom of speech is only about speech not being censored by the government . In terms of the legal principle of freedom of speech in the United States, this is correct.
In terms of the issue of being free to express yourself, this is too limited a view, since corporations and influential people and organizations can, without any governmental powers, work to censor a person's or group's ability to promulgate their message.
The uproar over WikiLeaks a few years ago is a good example of this. When WikiLeaks released a large number of cables from American diplomats, there was no legal fallout for this. While some officials in the American government said that they personally considered that to be criminal, or even terrorist, action, the U.S. government did not pursue any legal recourse against WikiLeaks as an organization (the case against Bradley Manning is a separate affair).
Despite this (and because of some phone calls from a few members of Congress), several big businesses moved to undercut WikiLeaks' ability to receive donations. Visa, Mastercard, Bank of America, Western Union, and PayPal all refused to allow donations to WikiLeaks, and the major Swiss bank that they had used severed their relationship with them. A number of web-hosts shut down the webpages that WikiLeaks was being hosted on (though new mirrors sprang up elsewhere in response).
This is an example of a perfectly legal way that private corporations can work to suppress the expressive activities (which in WikiLeaks' case was arguably journalistic activity) that they don't agree with, to the extent that it can seriously damage a groups' ability to express itself at all.
When a private group has a large amount of control over communications media, they have a high degree of oversight regarding speech. When several groups that have control over that media work together, they have near-total control.
That may be legal, but it doesn't make it right.
|
