* the opportunity to drive trucks through and over the holes in the reasoning and teach people something through a "Stuff David Icke Says" parody channel is snuffed.
* Icke gets to assume a martyr pose.
* YouTube looks a trifle authoritarian.
The truth doesn't have to resort to heavy-handedness to prevail. Newton's Third Law applies (in a social way) in these forcing situations.
Free speech, even outright lies, racism, etc. must necessarily exist in the public forum if a society is to remain free.
For now, the silencing is "friendly" in that it only destroys livelihoods. If we allow it to become a norm then how long will it take a populous - now so used to being silenced - to agree to let the government silence the "other"?
Once there is a "party" line, as in China, only suffering follows.
"For a while," said pretty much every such outfit.
“Contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilising anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech.
“Pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigour.” [1]
"In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. The more charges Streicher faced, the more the admiration of his supporters grew. In fact, the courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews." [2]
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03064220177488...
[2] https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2015/war-free-exp...
Truth is the better strategic bet, every time.
In my experience, truth is strong, and those who want to restrict speech probably aren't arguing for truth, but for their version of some ideology.
I wish reasoning worked. I know people who follow nut jobs like Icke, are anti-vaxxer, think COVID is 'just a cold', etc... and no amount of reasoning or data will change their minds.
If you truly do believe in a table for rational discussion all ideas should be considered regardless of how far-out they may seen. By banning various controversial figures from one side, but allowing other controversial figures from the other side to continue, is diametrically opposed to the idea of "open discussion" you claim to be supporting in your argument.
You may not care. But then you are not a proponent of free speech on a platform. When the platform becomes a global nerve center for content the argument "they are a private company and can do what they want" must be looked at with significantly more scrutiny. It would be extremely naive to not believe that YouTube not only knows they have this level of control, but are actively seeking to exploit it.
Nope. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...
It would be extremely naive to not believe that YouTube not only knows they have this level of control, but are actively seeking to exploit it. Assuming they are a rational actor this is precisely what they would be doing.
EDIT:
What I am saying is simply this: if their aim is to remove controversial characters then remove all of them. If they selectively ban controversial characters that identify with only one side of the horseshoe, then they are manipulating public opinion.
Is David Icke a right winger? A nut and probably an anti-Semite ya, I would agree with that.
Would it be ok then for left wing nuts to get the boot also? Or only certain political leanings get booted with the cheering section saying "good"!
This can't be relevant.
> have no place at the table for rational discussion.
What if I'm researching "conspiracy theories"?
What if I want to ridicule his stupid conspiracy theory, or make comedy/satire about it?
You are right that it shouldn't be relevant. I believe that in practice, it is. There are censorious free speech hating people on both sides, but the left-leaning ones seem to have much more power in the US in the last decade than the right-leaning ones. There are cultural issues here, and political allegiance is not irrelevant to the motivation, the rationalizations, or the power dynamics.
[Youtube] will still allow videos posted by others that feature Mr Icke to remain live, so long as their content does not break its rules.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52517797
Icke's own channel has been removed. He is not entirely barred from YouTube.
This kind of language is not acceptable in this platform.
> have no place at the table for rational discussion
David Icke is a citizen of the United States. His speech, rational or not, is free. YouTube is a company founded and operated within the United States. I argue that his rights to speak however he damn well pleases should not be infringed on a "platform". If YouTube wishes to be considered something other than a platform (a publisher!), then they can promote/limit whatever they please. As of now, they continue to insist they are a "platform" and are therefore not responsible for what is posted (unless it displeases the advertisers).
Discussion of irrational speech is how Marxism and other broken ideologies are seen for what they are.
Rather than tell the man to disappear, why not address what he says using the "rational discussion" you mentioned? That's exactly why we have rational discussion.
>This kind of language is not acceptable in this platform.
Correction: Right wing conspiracy theorist nutjobs are not acceptable in this platform.
>David Icke is a citizen of the United States.
He is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
>David Vaughan Icke (/ˈdeɪvɪd vɔːn aɪk/; born 29 April 1952) is an English conspiracy theorist, and former footballer and sports broadcaster. He is the author of over 20 books and has lectured in over 25 countries.
Where and when did you hear that David Icke became a US citizen? Citations, please.
Are you a citizen of the US? I ask, because you obviously don't understand what the First Amendment actually says.