Netflix's Bow to Saudi Censors Comes at a Cost to Free Speech
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I am an American who is currently living in Kuwait and spent about 3.5 years between Kuwait and Afghanistan.
In Kuwait you do not talk negatively about religion. This actually against the law and is largely how Kuwait avoids religious strife that infects other regions. In many nations here you don't talk negatively in public about the current national politics, though the acceptable tone differs by nation. In nearly all the nations here sex does not belong in any form of media. All matters of sex are private and to be kept within the household. Cursing in public is also generally bad. The allowed dress of people in media differs by nation as well.
In many areas they play American movies in public theaters, but will edit out parts that violate the local cultural norms. Remember that Sex In The City 2 was filmed in UAE, but I don't believe it was available in the cinema there.
None of this is new. The cultural challenge that nations face here is how to become modern without losing their unique identify and cultural legacies. The different countries are evolving on this matter at different speeds and prefer to accommodate for various different demands local.
That's really interesting, can you provide a source on this causal relationship?
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Kuwai...
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Kuwait_mosque_bombing
* https://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/freedom-speech-kuwait/
Which was only in the news because he was a journalist. Journalists care when other journalists get wronged. If it was you or I that got sawed up it might have been a footnote on some columnist's hobby blog.
Everyone knows you are dead but they cant call it
Simply put, if our government will not why do we feel we should hold private companies to a higher standard?
Besides, this whole thing is irony of the highest order. We scream bloody murder about Saudi Arabia explicitly censoring a comedian, meanwhile in the US we have an arguably worse form of implicit censorship where if you make an offensive (and harmless) joke, a bunch of noisy leftist maniacs go into high gear to end your career.
It's not confusion, it's choice.
There is no confusion. Some people simply are of the opinion that declaring profit as your purpose is not sufficient to justify hurting other people.
Same applies to free speech. The US could apply a law to their companies but they do not (because free unbound capitalism). I ignore anything related to national security in this argument :).
Human society of any sort is only possible because our species evolved beyond purely selfish behaviour to co-operate for the greater good. Modern civilisation is reliant on the majority of individuals following moral codes, instilled by cultural, religious and familial institutions and enforced by community action. We do not allow "profit-seeking" as a pass for acting immorally.
If companies want to enjoy the rights given to individuals within our societies, such as freedom to operate, equal treatment and protection under the law, etc. Then they also need to be bound by the same moral codes that allows successful co-operation between individual people. Allowing companies to have full legal rights while exempting them from moral responsibility is just as unfair and dangerous as it is to give a certain class of human the freedom to ignore moral norms without consequence.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-e...
This knee jerk relativism is getting old. Just because morality exists outside of systems of formal logic, doesnt make it any less important. It is still up for debate.
The above is an example of a “global value” to be enforced.
If that is being violated anywhere, it is a problem.
I can't believe posters on HN are defending this.
I can’t for the life of me understand what motivates people on this forum to behave this way...
And you maintain the same sense of correctness even as it is explained to you that your argument is regressive and unhelpful.
Commenters mistaking this for me condoning what Netflix did or making some broader assumption are just that, mistaken.
You did answer my question with an example, but I chose not to reply because I thought that if two sentences can be misconstrued so badly, more sentences wouldn't make anything better, but, since you replied, I will ask you:
> All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights
If a woman decides that she wants to cover her face with a burqa and we legislate a burqa ban, are we following her right to freedom or are we oppressing her? If a society votes that they don't want to see nudity on TV, is it right for another society to not adhere to that? Is it moral for Spotify to censor songs that the US finds offensive, even though Sweden disagrees?
This just sounds like an excuse to pander to human greed.
Certainly there are some things so terrible that we should expect companies not to go along, preferring to leave the country rather than participate. But censoring a TV episode (not even an entire show!) isn't that bad in the scheme of things.
Besides, Saudi probably has very different values, I am pretty sure if they try to spread their version of proper values in US, like what quality defines a woman, people won't be very welcoming and outrage will follow.
Take religion as a sample. The western countries will be majority atheist in 30-50 years. Do not assume that is the same around the globe.
But the mere fact that someone has a different opinion on something does not in any way entitle them to equal consideration of their position. Just because a murderer thinks that murdering people is fine does not mean that you should be welcoming towards murders or that outrage is unjustified.
Except Netflix isn't "trading with Saudi Arabia". Netflix is trying to sell subscriptions to Saudi individuals, and it is the Saudi government that is trying to enforce censorship. 2 completely distinct groups.
(Were this a less autocratic regime,I would have said "governments are just people", but I take your point on the government of SA being largely disjoint from the citizens)
This is not to argue that the 1st Amendment should compel anything beyond protection from government censorship, but that the value it exists to promote applies to wider situations
I'm much more concerned by Twitter, Facebook, Patreon, et al censoring Americans.
That's the point. Neither were SA's censorship laws. You have to conform to laws that wouldn't fly in the USA to do business in other countries.
I'm not sure why this matters, I'm sure they make enough money from SA users to justify region-locking specific episodes.
> it’s perfectly possible to restrict what private businesses can do abroad
This is not relevant. An appropriate example would be a company operating in a foreign country where they willfully ignore that country's laws.
Can you explain what you mean by this point? AFAIK the First Amendment is a US thing and GDPR is something Europeans wanted.
And I fully understand the argument of government vs private company. But the outcome is still the same - censorship. Whether content is censored at the behest of the saudis or the nytimes is meaningless to me. It's the spirit of free speech rather than the law.
Saudi Arabia has been censoring for decades. And the NYTimes has been more or less fine with that. Why the sudden change? Because the saudis are supporting Trump and vice versa? In 2008, when obama won, the nytimes and much of the media was hailing social media as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Since 2016, a complete shift. I wonder why?
The biggest disappoint for me is the realization that the NYTimes, just like foxnews and the rest of the major news companies, are politically driven rather than driven by morality or truth. If the saudis had been relentlessly mocking Trump rather than supporting him, I suspect the NYTimes article would be defending the saudis - along the lines of "when in rome..." or more likely, they wouldn't have bother writing anything. Supporting the regime and censorship by omission.
Also, I've noticed a significant drop in zuckerburg or facebook hitpieces by the media ever since his new year's message where he promised to get in line and censor like other major tech companies. I guess that means less anti-facebook spam, but more censorship online.
As others said, if you’re okay with abiding by GDPR, then you’re okay with abiding by laws and regulations of other locales like China, Russia and Saudi.
I mean, if they do it at the behest of the government, it very definitely is?
Even Germany has laws curtailing what we, in USA call "Free speech" (for obvious reasons they are sensitive about Nazi propaganda.) In USA you can say virtually all things, but you'll lose your job or sponsors, er...your paycheck. So censorship is done by private entities.
Netflix and other global companies have these kind of challenges. They are pretty used to it (imagine food or drug regulations). There is just a group of media/digital companies who grew their business niche too fast and are now surprised that local laws and regulations show up. The GDPR, free speech limitations, different social systems, SJW incompatibilities, etc are just samples of all of this.
And I want to highlight, that I do neither like consequences like this. I like my movies uncut, healthy discussion (eg about the monarchy) and equal right for minorities.
It's either censor certain episodes, or there's no Netflix at all.
If all companies just adhere to their rules, well the population will probably never require the change that they should because it will be good enough so the dangerous path of complaining is not worth it.
Tying to impose it on the rest of the world is yet another colonization.
True diversity is allowing other cultures to live by different values.
Fascist cultures should not be tolerated, fascist people should (inasmuch as their fascism does not impact others against those other's own wills, of course).
Demanding SA allow freedom for individuals to exercise their own conscience would be supporting a morally defensible notion of diversity.
One major problem is that some religions (eg Islam) and religious groups (eg Mormons) have central ideologies that are antithetical to freedom of conscience; making them incompatible with many freedoms associated with democratic societies (speech, thought, association).
Are you saying that “true diversity” is allowing small girls to have their clitorises cut off?
Saudi Arabia and China are not cultural monoliths. Their ruling classes may have a cultural value of stamping out dissenting values, but their subcultures so targeted would certainly disagree.
It's curious that USA's media corporations' [gamut of] values do get promoted through their productions. In more open societies they're just presented as is.
Also, AIUI Netflix can discriminate so long as it's consistent with the concept of "positive discrimination". So they can say "we're not having your show because you're a white male", or "we want you to include a homosexual lead character", or similar.
Netflix can't discriminate against anyone for their race, including white males.