It's not censorship. Let me stop you right there. Censorship, as it is, is defined thus...
Actually, it pretty much is:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.
Yes, it is
legal censorship as they have the right to, as you said, ban whomever they want, but it is censorship because as far as I know the guy did nothing wrong in the site nor did he break any rules, he was simply banned for his political views.
And just to break things down a little clearer for you, prohibition is defined as...
And?
So no, nothing about stopping a Nazi from joining a privately created dating app is censorous. Nothing. He doesn't have a "right" to join it, anymore than a newbie on RedCafe has the "right" to reach the mains. If he was running for political office and was denied a platform, then yes, that would be censorship. But being kicked off a second hand dating app for being a Nazi, ticks not one single feck given box. You or I could theoretically get kicked off tomorrow (were we on it) for calling someone a cnut, and I doubt you'd give it a second thought, let alone become politically outraged by the implications. So as hills go, "Nazis should be allowed on dating apps" seems a peculiarly rubbish one to die on.
As I said, Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Whether that group is private or not, it's still suppressing the right of the DailyStormer or that guy with the dating app of expressing their opinion. It's not as simple "Yeah, feck that. I'm gonna create my own app for Nazis", or "I'm gonna create my own Google for Nazis. Don't you understand how ridiculous that sounds? Companies are getting way too much power for my liking, tomorrow it's going to be you or me that's going to get censored simply for having a different opinion compared to the mainstream narrative. And that's just not right.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall said it best: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Illegality has nothing to do with it. If he'd done something illegal, he'd go to jail. He's just been banned from a dating app. I presume you don't think everyone banned from the Caf is then immediately arrested? Or do you? Because you're essentially arguing that it equates to the same thing. Niall can ban whomever he likes, just as that app can. I know some people got a bit annoyed when Billy Blaggs was canned, but I don't think anyone went as far as to protest the unjust treatment of his human rights.
No, no, no, no... no. That's simply not an accurate comparison. It's more like Niall banning someone on disagreeing with him whether Rooney sucks or not. Not 'illegal' in the law breaking sense but whether he followed the rules of the site. If he did, then banning him is quite strictly censorship that cannot be excused.
It wasn't banned from Google, but it did have its domain retracted. But once again, the domain hoster was a private company (GoDaddy) who presumably have a legal right to terminate things at their own behest. And if they don't, then the guy in question can sue them for unfair treatment. This is where his legal "rights" come in. As it stands atm though, none of these things fall under the banner of censorship, free speech or any concept of inalienable "rights".
Look man, I already told you the definition of "censorship". Whether it is legal or not doesn't matter. Google can tomorrow ban your IP from using it and it'd be considered legal because they are a private company and they can do whatever the hell they like. Would that be okay with you though? How the feck do you define 'censorship' if you not blocking of information from reaching other sources? Because that's what this is, whether you like it or not.
There's also the inescapable irony of the people most outraged by the "PC gone mad" culture that's supposedly forcing women and minorities into jobs, gaming reviews and homophobic cake imporiums against their will, turning around and claiming discrimination because other people aren't allowing them fair and unprejudicial access to everything.
What does this have to do with anything? And it is discrimination, that's for sure. They are blocking people because they do not fit well in the current environment.
And ideally neither do I...But there's a contextual difference between peaceful speaking, and marching en masse with flaming torches, in a deliberate show of both intimidation and Klan symbolism, whilst loudly chanting Nazi slogans on a University campus, in a city with a large black population. For my views on the nuances of
that, I'd refer you to
my post in this thread...
Is racism against the law in America? As far as I know it's not. And quite frankly I don't care much about what happened in Charlottesville besides the unfortunate death, all I care about is for companies (or anyone else for that matter) to stop censoring people just for having a different opinion than them.
