Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read?

I loathe Glenn Greenwald as a traitor, although I've never discounted that he occasionally makes a very good point.

In this case, on the widespread censorship of the James Foley beheading. I know. Why share terrorist propaganda? Well, one reason is broadcast the evil widely. Maybe the public will demand an overwhelming response from the American eagle. Certainly, the White House isn't going to do it on its own.

In any case, here's Greenwald at the Intercept:

Given the savagery of the Foley video, it’s easy in isolation to cheer for its banning on Twitter. But that’s always how censorship functions: it invariably starts with the suppression of viewpoints which are so widely hated that the emotional response they produce drowns out any consideration of the principle being endorsed.

It’s tempting to support criminalization of, say, racist views as long as one focuses on one’s contempt for those views and ignores the serious dangers of vesting the state with the general power to create lists of prohibited ideas. That’s why free speech defenders such as the ACLU so often represent and defend racists and others with heinous views in free speech cases: because that’s where free speech erosions become legitimized in the first instance when endorsed or acquiesced to.

The question posed by Twitter’s announcement is not whether you think it’s a good idea for people to see the Foley video. Instead, the relevant question is whether you want Twitter, Facebook and Google executives exercising vast power over what can be seen and read.

Right.

They already have so much power. It's ridiculous.

But keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Google Takes Down Blog Post: 'GRAPHIC VIDEO: Islamic State Beheads U.S. Journalist James Foley in Warning to Obama'."

RELATED: At the Los Angeles Times, "Social networks crack down on terror posts."