706

In a video on Oct. 13, Instagram influencer and photojournalist Motaz Azaiza shared footage of the rubble of an apartment, the site of an Israeli bombardment that killed 15 of his family members.

He turns the camera on himself first, visibly upset, and then shows the scene—the ruin of the building, a bloodstain, a neighbor carrying a child’s body draped with a shroud.

In response, Meta restricted access to his account.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 16 points 1 year ago

This is the sort of thing that freedom of speech is supposed to protect, but that idea has become so completely destroyed by Western people that I don't see any hope for people like that poor influencer.

He'll have to make his own website, or move to PixelFed or something.

[-] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

No government censored him, capitalism did

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 year ago

If freedom of speech can't protect you against corporate censorship then it's meaningless.

[-] fatzgebum@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Any website owner has the right to decide if he wants to remove certain content on his website. That is not an infringement of free speech.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, not in today's world where they are sock puppets for the government.

It doesn't matter because no one else can just infringe on your rights either. Rights are not about just protecting you from government, they're there to protect you from other people.

[-] freeman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

It is an infringement of free speech as a concept.

It is not an infringement of US law as the relevant protections are limited in scope to governmental actions.

Obviously US law and even more so the supreme court's interpretations of them are flawed, both on a moral level (big corps should also not be allowed to censor speech) and a logical level (censoring speech is free speech, corps are entitled to human rights).

[-] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Except if you have a de facto monopoly on social media which is the digital equivalent of a public forum then you have the ability to effectively curtail free speech.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
706 points (95.4% liked)

World News

32315 readers
841 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS