Censorship: what is the ICC's position?

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tagore2
Censorship: what is the ICC's position?
Printer-friendly version

This afternoon, I was watching excerpts from America's Frontline Doctors with French subtitles. The video was censored while I was watching it!

I read the transcript translation of the conference on France Soir. It only contains scientific informations, medical opinions, and testimonials from doctors defending the use of HCQ, AZ and zinc in the treatment of Covid-19, and the end of containment measures and wearing a mask in the general population. It does not preclude wearing a mask in specific conditions where it is useful: nursing staff, infected people, protection of vulnerable people, etc.

America’s Frontline Doctors is also an extreme right wing organization.

Video from the conference was almost completely censored on Google, Facebook and Twitter. Their website has been deleted by Squarespace.
-
Here is my opinion on the subject:

  • Globally, censorship should be banned.
  • Exceptionally, counter-revolutionary and anti-communist propaganda must be censored during the civil war. This is the only legitimate exception I see to the censorship ban.
  • Personally, everyone should be able to use categories, rankings and filters on internet content, like Adblock, so as not to be exposed to certain content. But it is a purely individual choice which does not concern the general ban on censorship.

-
The censorship of the extreme right and the extreme left, and the promotion of a capitalist and governmental "extreme center" constitute a serious threat to the labor movement, which is prevented from accessing or exchanging ideas when they oppose government policies.

Remember the censorship of wsws and anti-war organizations by Google and Facebook. Even if we disagree with wsws etc., we need to stand up for free speech together.

For the far right, it enjoys the support of part of the capitalist classes, and its ideas are widely disseminated or taken up by politicians from the far center. The far right is censored ... about HCQ!

If HCQ is effective, as I think it is, the far right will be greatly rewarded, and will benefit tremendously from censorship. And let's not forget that the effectiveness of HCQ does not depend on political opinions.

But the HCQ only illustrates the problem.

Basically, I would like to know the opinion of the ICC and the forum members on the issue of censorship.

d-man
You mention censorship in

You mention censorship in reference to online "platforms", but these are (supposedly) a particular type of thing.

So here are possible equivalents of a "platform" from the pre-internet era; a distributor of pamphlets in the street; wearing clothes/driving a car with a political message; drawing a message on the street/walls (graffiti); singing/shouting in a street/park/before a building etc.

In those cases, your suggested answer wouldn't work:

Quote:
Personally, everyone should be able to use categories, rankings and filters on internet content, like Adblock, so as not to be exposed to certain content. But it is a purely individual choice which does not concern the general ban on censorship.

Obviously one cannot, by a simple mouse-click, choose to "unsee" or "unhear" graffiti, flags, songs, etc. You must here physically remove posters, decline invitation (eg of Jehova's Witnesses), and avoid the persons or areas that are "broadcasting" – by running away, putting ear plugs in or turning your eyes away from them. This is already a greater burden.

And btw even in case of online platforms, your solution of a personal filter wouldn't fully insulate you from exposure to unwanted content, because it still shows the thumbnail message or appears in the search results/front page/suggestions/trending topics (just like in a library, you still notice covers of books that you dislike).

But your question is whether a "general ban" should be applied, and so I consider this for the examples I mentioned, eg graffiti or posters. These are constantly teared down/removed/covered by other (rival) private individuals, groups or public cleaners. Does this then constitute a "ban"?

When obnoxious leaflet distributors or loud vocal installations (eg drum circles or prayer calls) violate "public order" (ie cause obstruction, distraction and annoyance), private individuals can no longer themselves "ban" these, so force (by the state) would be necessary, though the state here could still merely be acting on the intitiative/demand/complaints by other citizens (eg living in the neighbourhood). If it is implemented on account of other citizens's "personal choice", is it a ban? (Btw when online platforms ban things, there often was some demand/pressure from other users, or advertisers).

Tagore2
I do not wish a technical

I do not wish a technical response, but a political response:

What do you think about the censorship by big tech companies and states on covid issues?

d-man
To prohibit online platforms

To prohibit online platforms from practicing "censorship" would require bourgeois government oversight/intervention/regulation in how the platforms are managed. You probably have in mind "big" platform sites, but to be consistent, such government intervention could even be extended to "small" platforms (if a small platform "censors" something, it is still "censorship", although less important because the reach was smaller anyway).

If, on the other hand, you are talking of socialism (after the ending of the civil war), when the owner of (the totality, big and small, of) platforms is the entire human race, the usual answer is that it is up to the future society to decide, in this case how they will manage platforms. If people still decide this may involve "censorship" of some content or some issues, then the constitutional rights you and me may have drawn ready today, will be left forgotten in our drawers.

Tagore2
it is the states that have

it is the states that have passed laws to make censorship mandatory on internet platforms, and on behalf of the state that plateforms censorship internet, in addition to their own corporate criteria.

moreover, censorship is incompatible with communist society, since it implies that society is divided into two categories: censors who judge the content to be censored, and censored peoples who cannot express themselves freely or have free access to all the information and ideas.  this division is characteristic of class societies, that is to say of a non-communist society.