Dear All,
We have been discussing on this list concerns about groups dictating what media publishes. I did not particularly like the viewpoint expressed on this newsletter from the National Libertarian Party. Lip service to Facebook's right to publish or not publish whatever they want, and to First Amendment rights of protest, did not help this message in my view.
Regards,
Marcy
You're right about this, Marcy. Even more to the point, though, it shows what a sludgepit of corporate toadies the LP has become. If this had happened when Karl Hess was running the LP, he would have been denouncing this in press releases all over the place.
Marcy,
I have a somewhat different concern with the Libertarian Party message below, namely I'm not sure that the LP *is* the only party that favors complete legalization of marijuana. I believe the Green Party also does so, and among smaller parties I'm sure the Marijuana Party does. We should strive to be accurate in such matters and give others credit where it is due. But I don't see what's wrong with taking Facebook to task for disallowing some pro-freedom advertising. Why shouldn't we pubicly criticize them for that?
I think Wes Benedict expressed it perfectly: "We recognize Facebook's right to control their content and censor whoever they want. But we're also exercising our First Amendment right to complain about their bad decision, and to alert other consumers to put pressure on them."
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Dear All FYI
Google is delightfully sucking up all the Face Book marijuana ads which were
pulled or turned down. That's the free market responding... AHA...
The Libertarian thumbs down on the Face Book free market response to do what
they want with their Face Book site could have been stated a little bit more
adroitly.
I would not be surprised to see Face Book mull over any ads the Libertarian
Party might want to run on the right side bar...
Revenge is best when served cold.
Ron Getty
Hi Starchild,
I was siding with Facebook's freedom to accept or reject whatever it wants. And the statement you quote was the one I was referring to as lip service.
Marcy
Marcy,
How do you think the two-part concept, [(1) people have the right to publish or not publish what they want, and (2) people have the right to publicly criticize those decisions, organize boycotts, etc.], *should* have been expressed by the LP in a way that (1) would *not* have come across as merely paying lip service?
I'm assuming you do believe that (2) is also correct and valid. Are you suggesting that we as Libertarians, having a vested interest in (2) in this particular situation (seeing Facebook publish the party's ad), nevertheless have a responsibility to put *more* emphasis on (1) when discussing this situation, even though *both principles are valid* and (2) is in greater accord with our interests in this particular context? Do you think the "freedom to publish" principle is *more* important or valid than the "freedom to criticize/boycott" principle? Both seem equally important and valid to me, because each is a key element of the same larger principle of freedom of speech.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Eric,
I don't understand your comment. What do you think the Libertarian Party's response should have been or should be to Facebook refusing to publish an LP ad about marijuana legalization, and why?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
My response would have been that since Facebook is part of a media conglomerate existing by grace of the government, it has an obligation to follow the same Constitution that the government does; and has no right to censor anybody.
Corporate charters are essentially government grants of priviledge. But Facebook doesn't own Cyberspace; it can't control what anybody does on its pages.
Also, since Facebook is publically traded stock, it is, for all intents and purposes, publically-owned.
If this were a company with a webpage (like most blogs) with clear ownership and competeing fairly and openly in a free market, then they might have some right to regulate content.
Eric,
Are you suggesting that if the U.S. Constitution were amended to prohibit the advertising of substances declared harmful by government, that Facebook in your opinion would have an obligation to censor the LP ad, even if Facebook management actually *wanted* to run the ad?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild:
I think that's essentially what Facebook and the rest of Corporate America is already doing. I haven't seen much from them other than to follow whatever orders the government gives them. Which shouldn't be surprising, since they bribe the politicians to make the regulations in the first place.
In reality, I think incorporated entities should be illegal, or else highly restricted. For example, I would prohibit any company from trading more than 25% of its shares on the stock market and tighten ownership requirements. I would prohibit any corporate executive from serving in the government in any capacity. I would extend constitutional protection to anyone living or working under an incorporated entity.
So, technically, the answer to your question would be yes; although the corporation in question would have a right to challenge such an amendment and work towards overturning it.