Article Link
At first, I was totally in agreement with Twitter and Youtube taking down the video of James Foley (I for one will never watch this out of respect for Ms. Foley's family.) However, after listening to Mr. Hernandez, I agree that allowing private corporations to censure certain news is dangerous. People should be able to make the determination whether or not they should view or hear someone else's free speech. And if enough people and government representatives believe a certain type of free speech should be blocked, then a law should be passed. For instance, the child pornography example is an appropriate one; yes, by all means, censure that unethical "free speech." What's your take on this free speech issue? Should we allow private companies determine what news and information we can and cannot know about?
Once I had read along to the recording, I, at first, understood more about the Foley situation that had arose and the censorship that followed from it. It explained that after posting the video on media sites that it was quickly taken down and blocked. I thought, "Good. For the sake of the journalist and his family." But as the conversation between Hernandez and the reporter went on, the perspective in my mind of what censorship should be changed. Hernandez explains that it is a person's choice of what they should see and what now to. If they want to Google it, so be it, it's the person's decision whether to view or now. Censoring could also impose as a bad thing, from what I understood in Hernandez's explanation. If censoring goes into iconic parts in history or what not, that may effect the point of view of not only people but even an entire country. What he also leaves off with before the interview had ended also struck me as something interesting to hold on to and think about as if ended, which was: "This one here is not the government censoring. This is a tech company that is censoring. Now, again, it's their platform. It's their rules. But it is something to be aware of. It's something different." It struck my thoughts as something I've never really truly thought about before, and that is: Should the tech company's really have the right to regulate the things we see online (in terms of censorship)?
ReplyDelete(Bree M. aka Bryanna Mendoza)
I believe that people should have the write to free speech but within reason. If someone has a message they want out it is okay it they make a video talking about the topic. In my opinion it is not okay for them to making a video where they decapitate a living breathing person. That is not speech, that is abuse and I think think that putting a video like that is okay. Someone else's freedom of speech should not have the capability to phycologically disrupt someone and a video like that does. That video also takes away from the rights of the victim and their family. They have the right to privacy and videos like that take aways there right and there family. Blocking some information in my opinion is necessary and helps protect the right of world citizens rather than take it away.
ReplyDeleteI do believe in the right to have freedom of speech and therefore wanting to share opinions to others. However, when a video contains violence to send a message, it should be censored. Freedom of speech has always been an essential law to Americans, however freedom of violence and murder is not one. I agree with the Foley family wishing to have the video taken down of their child being beheaded, it is their family and they can choose whether it is or is not appropriate. I do agree with private companies deeming whether something should be publicized or not; however families who are affiliated with the post should have the final opinion and be able to judge if they can broadcast. Some news may be hidden from the public, however major breaking news has a tendency to leak out no matter how much it is protected. Censoring will help from having gruesome images being shown to the wrong eyes. If a specific piece of news published is considered to be appalling to many, there should be a partition whether the news should be removed.
ReplyDeleteI feel that free speech should have certain limitations. I am totally in agreement with Youtube for taking down all of the videos of the beheading, not so much because they were afraid it was spreading ISIS propaganda, but because millions of kids go on Youtube every single day. Watching a beheading in a movie is gruesome enough, and that is why movie ratings exist. Seeing a real human being having his throat slit and head cut off with a knife is on a whole nother level. This can be seriously mentally scaring to little kids who have never seen death before, so I think removing it from such a public website was a good call. If you really wanted to see the video for yourself, it would be easy to find on sites like Liveleak, but children would likely not be anywhere near those kinds of sites. This can turn into a slippery slope, however, if Youtube has total control over what is censored or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gavin. Removing this video from public sights will help shield the eyes of young children and prevent them from learning the truths of the world at an improper age. Although some websites will still contain the videos of the beheading, most young children will not get informed and see the disturbing video. Private companies should be able to censor the news that should not be viewed by the citizens. However, depending on that company's definition on what needs to be censored, it may be unnecessary to censor. There needs to be a certain group of people to represent the citizens and view over what needs to be censored. This certain group could be chosen by the citizens for the citizens.
DeleteFreedom of speech in my opinion is completely right but should have certain restrictions. As for censorship, it should not be enforced in situations like these. I feel it would be useful, in a way, to expose this to people. It helps show the harsh reality and truths of what is occurring around the world today. Sheltering citizens from what is going on is wrong. Though the images and scenes may seem extremely vivid, it was an actual event. Parents and private companies try to censor it from the news but this would be unjust. Trying to shelter children from this is wrong. This is the world they live in and these type of incidents are continuously occurring. Private companies should not be able to determine what news and information we can and cannot know about. This should be up to the citizens.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the people above, I believe that freedom of speech should exist in both it's pros and cons. However, the only limitation I think necessary is to have the people involved in the scenario consent to its publication. Yes, censoring can prevent children from learning about the existence of such gruesome events; however, it is still a right that everyone possesses. In terms of presentation, I believe that it is absolutely essential that the occurrence be expressed in a non-biased manner. Otherwise, that changes the perspective on the story. It will not be the truth but instead a person's truth: an account. This is rather difficult to achieve, but at the same time, when information spreads, different perspectives are all shared, allowing the viewer, if he or she wishes, to get a more broad understanding of the situation.
ReplyDeleteThe filtering of content on sites like YouTube and Twitter doesn't bother me. I think this is a good way for private companies to regulate their communities so that viewers can safely browse these websites. Within the confines of their own private domain, weeding out media deemed inappropriate does not impact the availability of information over the entire internet. Of course, I would be disturbed if this censorship occurred at a higher level - for example, if the government began to block certain websites or objectionable content. Freedom of speech should exist online, but if someone owns a website they should be able to choose what appears and what doesn't appear.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that allowing corporations to decide what we can be exposed to and what we can't is very dangerous. We tend to place a lot of trust in what we hear, whether or not it is true, and allowing private companies to decide what we see could have disastrous consequences. For one, it could sway public opinion on certain things, without giving us the chance to hear any other points of view. It is simply too much power to be put in the hands of private corporations. I also agree with Joy, in that freedom of speech should exist in both its pros and cons (with the consent of the individuals involved). I believe that people have a right to information, and it is wrong to hide the truth from the public.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion everyone does have a right to freedom of speech but only to a certain extent. In this case of the censorship of Foley’s beheading I do agree with removing the video and briefly suspending some Twitter accounts. I agree with Athena with how it “shows the harsh reality and truths” because people should know what is going on but its just not suitable for certain audiences. Children in this case should not be revealed to the reality and truths of life just yet. However the public (adults) on the other hand can be shown these videos because they should know what is going on even though it maybe be disturbing. I think the video was right to be censored but I think a better approach was if the video was to be adult rated (possible on youtube) and you would have to be old enough to watch it. Freedom of speech is a right to everyone but it also depends on the situation.
ReplyDeleteI believe letting the government or corporations decide what to show the world wouldn't be smart. They could hide out things from us that they think we don't need to know but we do. Like how that reporters video got out to the internet. Yes, it is very disturbing and seems not right to show whats going out of respect but, if they didn't publish this on to the internet we would know what is happening. But since we do, we now know that we should be careful. I believe that certain things should be aloud published and some not.
ReplyDelete