this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
687 points (95.3% liked)

World News

32290 readers
934 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

There is a wave of censorship and McCarthyist witch hunting against Pro Palestinian voices happening in the West. It is profoundly disturbing and shows how hollow the West's claims to championing personal liberty is.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 16 points 1 year ago (13 children)

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 (12 children)

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

[–] BROMETHIUS@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right. This sucks, but it's not an infringement on free speech.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It falls into a place never envisioned by those writing the amendments. When you have defacto monopolization of the public media, or even a major portion of it under your control, then preventing commentary is functionally censorship equal to if the government outright banned it.

On the other end you have the desire to prevent harmful transmissions to the public space as well. Incitements to violence and propagation of blatant lies serves no good purpose.

Balancing the two has been the subject of countless lawsuits. The only justification I could see here, given the visual nature of Instagram, would be the potential for gore and violence content. Sometimes showing the ugly reality is needed to let people know the reality rather than a polished sanitized version. Instagram might not be the place for that though given the audience it has.

By comparison a tame subject, but the case involving George Carlin still holds some sway on matters of what's appropriate for public broadcast.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)