The second Red Scare's Hollywood blacklist operated in the same way. It was privately organized, even if many politicians approved of it and government investigations provided evidence. The studios did their own investigations and provided a process for people to clear their names. Communists violated their contracts. Communists had alternatives to produce entertainment and get their views across without being part of the major studios; in addition to smaller presses, live action theater was virtually unaffected. Yes, the alternatives weren't as attractive as working with the major studios, but they were still there.
I wholeheartedly agree that the people being banned on Parler are dangerous insurrectionists who believe in violence and indeed often genocide, along with a lot of dupes. That also precisely describes the CPUSA, along with other groups like Nazi sympathizers targeted by the Hollywood blacklist and other private blacklists. I am fine with people being okay with the Parler ban, but they should at least be very understanding of the private, and popular Hollywood blacklist of Communists.
Right, but the Hollywood blacklist was private, and it was done because of belief that it would hurt their business by doing so. Yes, politicians approved of it, and government investigations or lack of testimony was sometimes evidence used, but the studios had their own investigations and a clearance system for people to dispute their blacklisting. They also were influenced by pressure and evidence brought by private groups like the American Legion.
Certainly the same sorts of analogies apply to censorship of, say, LGBTQ issues in decades past, but there it is much easier for me to argue that I opposed the censorship because there was nothing wrong with the views being suppressed.
In the case of the CPUSA, they were as evil and pro genocide as the rioters on Parler. Yes, in both cases some dupes get swept up along with the truly evil. But both are private actions done to protect business, and in both cases people have and had alternatives, even if not as good.
All of this is to explain why the Hollywood blacklist was quite popular at the time, and why people who support the actions against Parler would support the Hollywood blacklist (and similar actions against Nazi sympathizers) then and probably should support it now. Equally, people could oppose either blacklist without actually being sympathetic to the views.
"The 1st Amendment protects a company's right not to associate with those it does not wish to associate with. It also protects against being compelled to host speech it disagrees with. Those are both constitutionally protected things. Section 230 does not change that."
That is true, but surely a similar argument can be made regarding ISPs, net neutrality, and the 1st Amendment? I agree that it's certainly possible to distinguish the situations on the basis of exactly how far state action doctrine goes, what is considered a common carrier, whether the market is a monopoly (natural or otherwise) but the editorial line at Techdirt tends to be very strong about claiming that the result is obvious in all cases, even when taking different lines at slightly different levels in the network stack.
Too, a similar argument can be made about, e.g., the Hollywood Blacklist. Yes, the studios sometimes used HUAC hearings as evidence, but they also did their own investigations, provided an internal clearance process to absolve people of accusations, were motivated by private considerations (even if egged on by many politicians), including pressure from their own customers (notably the American Legion.) I think it's pretty clear that the Hollywood studios had the 1st Amendment rights to impose the blacklist. I think it's also pretty clear that many of the people being discussed today are quite evil, though again anyone who was a loyal believer in the CPUSA was as well. (Many of those today were delusional; equally true of CPUSA members.) During the Hollywood blacklist, there were plenty of alternative presses, alternative publications, alternative theaters, and ways to put out pro-Communist works, just not Hollywood studios. Yet I recall people generally denouncing the blacklist on idealistic grounds (including invoking the free speech and free association of the party members, rather than the studios.) Am I to believe that all those people were in reality Communist sympathizers, or did their liberal inclinations come from some other perspective that should at least be given a fair hearing rather than dismissed?
No, that's not the excuse that they use. The excuse that they use is that they don't use the word "collection" in the way that you or I would. To them, it's only "collection" after the "minimization procedures" are done. The initial interception isn't a "collection."
You can note that the law makes it illegal to collect inside the US. It is legal to collect outside the United States (defined as in Title 50 Paragraph 1801) so long as US persons are not targeted (without a FISA warrant) and the "minimization procedures" are followed; i.e., stuff is analyzed to discard US person communications within a time limit and before further analysis is done.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John Thacker.
A nuanced argument in favor of the Hollywood blacklist
The second Red Scare's Hollywood blacklist operated in the same way. It was privately organized, even if many politicians approved of it and government investigations provided evidence. The studios did their own investigations and provided a process for people to clear their names. Communists violated their contracts. Communists had alternatives to produce entertainment and get their views across without being part of the major studios; in addition to smaller presses, live action theater was virtually unaffected. Yes, the alternatives weren't as attractive as working with the major studios, but they were still there.
I wholeheartedly agree that the people being banned on Parler are dangerous insurrectionists who believe in violence and indeed often genocide, along with a lot of dupes. That also precisely describes the CPUSA, along with other groups like Nazi sympathizers targeted by the Hollywood blacklist and other private blacklists. I am fine with people being okay with the Parler ban, but they should at least be very understanding of the private, and popular Hollywood blacklist of Communists.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, but the Hollywood blacklist was private, and it was done because of belief that it would hurt their business by doing so. Yes, politicians approved of it, and government investigations or lack of testimony was sometimes evidence used, but the studios had their own investigations and a clearance system for people to dispute their blacklisting. They also were influenced by pressure and evidence brought by private groups like the American Legion.
Certainly the same sorts of analogies apply to censorship of, say, LGBTQ issues in decades past, but there it is much easier for me to argue that I opposed the censorship because there was nothing wrong with the views being suppressed.
In the case of the CPUSA, they were as evil and pro genocide as the rioters on Parler. Yes, in both cases some dupes get swept up along with the truly evil. But both are private actions done to protect business, and in both cases people have and had alternatives, even if not as good.
All of this is to explain why the Hollywood blacklist was quite popular at the time, and why people who support the actions against Parler would support the Hollywood blacklist (and similar actions against Nazi sympathizers) then and probably should support it now. Equally, people could oppose either blacklist without actually being sympathetic to the views.
(untitled comment)
"The 1st Amendment protects a company's right not to associate with those it does not wish to associate with. It also protects against being compelled to host speech it disagrees with. Those are both constitutionally protected things. Section 230 does not change that."
That is true, but surely a similar argument can be made regarding ISPs, net neutrality, and the 1st Amendment? I agree that it's certainly possible to distinguish the situations on the basis of exactly how far state action doctrine goes, what is considered a common carrier, whether the market is a monopoly (natural or otherwise) but the editorial line at Techdirt tends to be very strong about claiming that the result is obvious in all cases, even when taking different lines at slightly different levels in the network stack.
Too, a similar argument can be made about, e.g., the Hollywood Blacklist. Yes, the studios sometimes used HUAC hearings as evidence, but they also did their own investigations, provided an internal clearance process to absolve people of accusations, were motivated by private considerations (even if egged on by many politicians), including pressure from their own customers (notably the American Legion.) I think it's pretty clear that the Hollywood studios had the 1st Amendment rights to impose the blacklist. I think it's also pretty clear that many of the people being discussed today are quite evil, though again anyone who was a loyal believer in the CPUSA was as well. (Many of those today were delusional; equally true of CPUSA members.) During the Hollywood blacklist, there were plenty of alternative presses, alternative publications, alternative theaters, and ways to put out pro-Communist works, just not Hollywood studios. Yet I recall people generally denouncing the blacklist on idealistic grounds (including invoking the free speech and free association of the party members, rather than the studios.) Am I to believe that all those people were in reality Communist sympathizers, or did their liberal inclinations come from some other perspective that should at least be given a fair hearing rather than dismissed?
Re: Re: How does this off shoring work?
Re: Re: How does this off shoring work?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John Thacker.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt