Gov't control of speech does not necessarily preempt private control of speech. So you don't get to choose between the gov't and "vigilantes," legal or otherwise. In our system, private control of speech does essentially preempt gov't control.
That of course doesn't prove that private control is good. Eg the Hollywood production code an…
Gov't control of speech does not necessarily preempt private control of speech. So you don't get to choose between the gov't and "vigilantes," legal or otherwise. In our system, private control of speech does essentially preempt gov't control.
That of course doesn't prove that private control is good. Eg the Hollywood production code and later blacklist, which arose out of the industry's fear of gov't oversight, were debatable to say the least. But it's doubtful gov't oversight would have averted either. (Cf. Vichy France's doing the Gestapo one better.)
As I've indicated, when it comes to speech I'd rather take my chances with the private sector than with the gov't, let alone both, unless you can show that the private sector literally controls the gov't across the board and isn't just interested in protecting itself from hostile antitrust suits and the like. (Industry leaders often actually welcome gov't regulation as it tends to freeze the status quo and stifle incipient competition.) Last I looked, corporations as indiscriminately ravenous octopusses has been a popular populist talking point (on both left and right) for well over a century, but I still don't buy it. (Even though don't think they're "people" either.)
My ultimate point is that censorship through coercion is bad, period--regardless of whether public or private. While public (government) control has its obvious issues, particularly in extremis, private censorship is often more pernicious and you have less recourse against it in a system such as ours.
I don't think that corps are indiscriminately ravenous, they tend to be discriminate. Their saving grace, so far, is they are generally not concerned with speech, preferring instead to ape the speech of whatever market segment they are most desirous of reaching at the moment.
Government regulation (from a corporate standpoint) is often a good thing because it sets the boundaries of expected opportunities and threats and--as you note--tends to freeze the status quo.
Much of what "evil" they do is incidental evil--something that just kind of occurs while they are trying to do something else. To my mind that actually kind of makes it worse... the banality of evil (though, of course, evil is perhaps too strong a word especially without the intentionality).
Gov't control of speech does not necessarily preempt private control of speech. So you don't get to choose between the gov't and "vigilantes," legal or otherwise. In our system, private control of speech does essentially preempt gov't control.
That of course doesn't prove that private control is good. Eg the Hollywood production code and later blacklist, which arose out of the industry's fear of gov't oversight, were debatable to say the least. But it's doubtful gov't oversight would have averted either. (Cf. Vichy France's doing the Gestapo one better.)
As I've indicated, when it comes to speech I'd rather take my chances with the private sector than with the gov't, let alone both, unless you can show that the private sector literally controls the gov't across the board and isn't just interested in protecting itself from hostile antitrust suits and the like. (Industry leaders often actually welcome gov't regulation as it tends to freeze the status quo and stifle incipient competition.) Last I looked, corporations as indiscriminately ravenous octopusses has been a popular populist talking point (on both left and right) for well over a century, but I still don't buy it. (Even though don't think they're "people" either.)
My ultimate point is that censorship through coercion is bad, period--regardless of whether public or private. While public (government) control has its obvious issues, particularly in extremis, private censorship is often more pernicious and you have less recourse against it in a system such as ours.
I don't think that corps are indiscriminately ravenous, they tend to be discriminate. Their saving grace, so far, is they are generally not concerned with speech, preferring instead to ape the speech of whatever market segment they are most desirous of reaching at the moment.
Government regulation (from a corporate standpoint) is often a good thing because it sets the boundaries of expected opportunities and threats and--as you note--tends to freeze the status quo.
Much of what "evil" they do is incidental evil--something that just kind of occurs while they are trying to do something else. To my mind that actually kind of makes it worse... the banality of evil (though, of course, evil is perhaps too strong a word especially without the intentionality).