11 ms·

The "free speech" concept in its most noble and pure form is about government censorship.[1] It's not about about commercial censorship (e.g. Facebook) or soci

• coldpie 10y ago
  Very well put. Any article that conflates the term "free speech" with using some private organization's resources against their terms is garbage, this one included.
  • izacus 10y ago
    That's a funny thing to hear here on HN, considering that most of opression in socialist regimes of our former countries here have been by private organizations (which caved due to pressure from government on them). If people are afraid of freely discussing political ideas, there's no free speech. It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or other personal issues (as was in former socialists states in EU).
    • coldpie 10y ago
      You know what? You're right. I didn't read the article. I see it is focused much more broadly on the globe and govornment-sponsored censorship. I assumed it was another dumbass article chicken-littleing about social media companies choosing how much hate to allow on their platforms.
      • kelukelugames 10y ago
        Are you alluding to the previous article? This one is worth reading. It mentions how the US military begged a pastor to not promote hate because it jeopardizes security on foreign soil.
        • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
          Note well: Begged. Not ordered. Not forced. Not sent the police (or some thugs) to supply some intimidation. They asked. That was within their right to do.
    • SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      >It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or other personal issues (as was in former socialists states in EU). That seems like the kind of free speech that limits other people's free speech ability to say something along the lines of "nazi punks fuck off" and actively respond to things they disagree with. To say that no one has "free speech" if there are any consequences to saying stuff seems to me as taking it much too far.
      • izacus 10y ago
        I'm not trying to say any such thing. But what I am saying is that there is absolutely no difference if a news reporter is arrested by the government or if that same news reporter is fired and can't find a job again. Free discussion of problems in society was blocked in both cases. In real history the second form of government supression was significantly more common than the first and was supported by the same kind of argument the original poster was making. IMO the difference is in the magnitude of consequences - if I criticize EU policy and as a consequence I'm not welcome in a smaller discussion group due to it is one thing. If I and everyone else criticizes that same policy and we all lose our jobs and houses because of that, it's a whole different type of problem.
  • xienze 10y ago
    The problem is that today's suppression of "free speech" by private organizations helps shape public opinion about the government doing it tomorrow. I.e., when a generation have grown up believing Google, Facebook, etc. silencing "free speech" on their platforms to be reasonable actions they may become more amenable laws being passed in the future ("Facebook bans hate speech and it's a better place for it, I think maybe federal laws against hate speech would be a good thing"). It's a worthwhile thing to be concerned about.
    • mangeletti 10y ago
      If you're given the right to control what Facebook has the right to censor, then you're actually removing Facebook's freedom of expression. After all, their code and their website is a form of expression of their own, despite being composed in part by users' content. The problem that exists with Facebook is actually just a symptom of another, largely unspoken problem; Facebook has a monopoly, and this monopoly gives them unprecedented influence over the population. Getting to the bottom of things is important, because the bandage that addresses the symptom you're describing is the tyranny you fear.
• JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  But in its general form, its about the American ideal of the free sharing of ideas in public. That's entirely independent of Constitutional arguments. We can reasonably argue that Facebook is being fundamentally UnAmerican in their behavior, and should be censured for it.
  • jamespo 10y ago
    Restricting a company from doing business as it likes within legal boundaries sounds pretty UnAmerican too.
    • paulryanrogers 10y ago
      True, but there is a middle ground. The users of the service could boycott or make their voices heard in other ways. Of course when a single company has a near monopoly due to network effect they become a defacto government.
      • SolaceQuantum 10y ago
        A government is defined significantly more than the ability to maybe tell you you can't say X or Y thing in their virtual space.
  • insickness 10y ago
    I could create a website and delete any comments I don't like. Many websites do. It's not unAmerican if I do it, nor is it unAmerican if Facebook does it. I would detest the possibility of government censure of my website or of Facebook's.
    • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Facebook is not 'a website'. Its a hosting service for lots of collaborative websites. Clearly debatable whether its more like an ISP than a publisher.
      • 10y ago
• sevenless 10y ago
  First, this isn't just about government censorship. It might be legal to draw Muhammed cartoons in Western countries, but everyone's afraid to do it because of what some hothead might do in revenge. We have some groups deciding to impose censorship on the wider community by threat of violence, no-platforming, etc, with the same result as if the government had done it. If the outcome is the same (censorship and fear of free discussion) how is this not related to freedom of speech? And if these groups are powerful enough to over-ride the law and impose their will on everyone else, doesn't that make them somewhat government-like in themselves? Second, the fact single private corporations can make decisions with a large impact on what can be said "in public" (ie, these days, on the internet) is problematic in itself. There is no "public space" online, and our civil laws aren't adapted to that. But that's also the same old problem the socialists identified with "freedom of the press": it applies to those with a printing press, and nobody else.
  • gnaritas 10y ago
    > First, this isn't just about government censorship. Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship, and that's all it means. Fear of drawing Muhammed because of violence from Muslims while an issue, has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech the constitutional right. You don't have a freedom to offend or a freedom from consequences of pissing off radicals. > And if these groups are powerful enough to over-ride the law and impose their will on everyone else, doesn't that make them somewhat government-like in themselves? No, it doesn't, because they're not overriding laws and their violence is punishable by the law.
    • talmand 10y ago
      If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? If a group can threaten another into silence regardless of laws of the land with the state not involving itself, one could argue that the oppressive group has become the arm of an oppressive state.
• thedevil 10y ago
  I've recently seen this used as an excuse to do some horrible things. If we define "free speech" to mean freedom from oppression only by government, then we need a new word to mean freedom to express ideas without people actively organizing to try to hurt you. Edit: And the recent bad behavior is effective. I'm a little rebellious and I explore a lot of different ideas. I'm afraid to express certain ideas, opinions or even information that are not popular. I'm afraid that it might wipe out my career or pose physical danger to me if someone misinterprets what I say and turns the mob against me.
  • dragontamer 10y ago
    > then we need a new word to mean freedom to express ideas without people actively organizing to try to hurt you. We used to call that bullying. And that "freedom" never existed. That's why we make laws to throw bullies in jail, to discourage bullying. Harassment, bullying, etc. etc. People are assholes. That will always exist, and at best the behavior can only be discouraged. Basic schoolyard principles yo.
    • thedevil 10y ago
      The problem is that those bullies are using this argument to pretend they're doing nothing wrong. Even if true free speech never existed, the idea of it shows exactly how they're being assholes.
      • talmand 10y ago
        Yes, it is an intriguing thing to witness. Bullies claiming they need the power to restrict the speech of their bullies. Sometimes they are correct when they point out the alleged bullies, but too many times the "bully" is someone that simply disagrees.
  • gnaritas 10y ago
    > If we define "free speech" to mean freedom from oppression only by government That's not an "if", that's what it means and what's it's always meant, it's been defined that way since the founding of the country. > then we need a new word to mean freedom to express ideas without people actively organizing to try to hurt you. Assault is already illegal, we don't need a new word to describe out right not to be physically assaulted.
• gr3yh47 10y ago
  >without fear of black helicopters surrounding the protester's home. The military operatives won't come to arrest him and keep him silent Don't protest about wall street or a militarized police force damn well will beat you up/pepper spray you/shoot you with a grenade launcher/arrest you
• yummyfajitas 10y ago
  So you'll have no problem with a world where homosexual advocates, communists and anti-racists are socially shunned and economically excluded? I should have the total freedom to refuse to hire anyone who advocates for more women/non-Asian minorities in technology? The Hollywood Blacklist - published by the Hollywood Reporter and implemented by studios - was totally fine? This is a very libertarian position. But those of us who are part of the left wing are somewhat cognizant of the dangers of marginal voices being economically and socially excluded, even if it's not done via state sponsored violence. (Incidentally, is there also no problem with freedom of association applying only to the government? I.e., if I choose not to associate with women/non-Asian minorities in my business, that's ok too, given that I'm not the government?)
  • zeveb 10y ago
    > So you'll have no problem with a world where homosexual advocates, communists and anti-racists are socially shunned and economically excluded? Do you have a problem with a world where those who oppose homosexual activity, corporations and racists are socially shunned and economically excluded? > I should have the total freedom to refuse to hire anyone who advocates for more women/non-Asian minorities in technology? Do you have total freedom to refuse to hire anyone who advocates for merit-based hiring? > The Hollywood Blacklist - published by the Hollywood Reporter and implemented by studios - was totally fine? Was the NBA's lifetime ban on Donald Sterling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling#Racial_remarks_and_lifetime_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling#Racial_remarks...) totally fine? > This is a very libertarian position. But those of us who are part of the left wing are somewhat cognizant of the dangers of marginal voices being economically and socially excluded, even if it's not done via state sponsored violence. I'd argue that the groups you mentioned are far less marginalised than those I mentioned. That was, of course, not the case until recently. That's why I take the libertarian position: freedom of association is sacrosanct; you are free to associate with whomever you like and I am free to associate with whomever I like (I suppose I should note that I've no desire to associate with racists and sexists, just to forestall that line of criticism). Anything else is fundamentally unjust: it uses the threat of force to compel someone to associate with those he wishes to remove himself from. It's wrong.
• mindslight 10y ago
  > Protection from government censorship means an American can criticize President Obama as "a stupid incompetent Chief Executive" without fear of black helicopters surrounding the protester's home This does not follow. Your narrow definition does nothing to stop a private organization, with its own motive for supporting the president, from deploying some black helicopters. This is not a nit - any government is isomorphic to a perfect "Libertopia" where a single corporation owns everything. In other words, if you don't like a country's rules, then just leave their premises! So in order to mean anything at all, the concept of Freedom of Speech (and really, any societal ideals) must mean something more general. We cannot simply create a basic foundation of rules, and then let emergent structure usurp any qualitative guarantees we had desired!
  • sanderjd 10y ago
    It seems to me that there are two separate legal structures that protect me from your hypothetical: 1. The government can't send black helicopters because of freedom of speech and 2. A private organization can't deploy black helicopters to take me into custody for any purpose (that's kidnapping). This is why it's important to hold government to a higher standard: they can legally do far more things than private organizations.
    • mindslight 10y ago
      First, OP said nothing about kidnapping - there's a lot of intimidation that can be done that isn't explicitly illegal. Even more that won't be prosecuted when say the "private organization" and "government" enjoy a cozy relationship. But that scenario is based around "independent" reprisals. The real threat we are facing today is directly connected consequences... > [government] can legally do far more things than private organizations This completely misses my original point - both government and private organizations can do things that effectively punish. For example, a mall can kick you out and banish you for wearing an offensive T-shirt. This is not a problem when malls are but a small part of society, but form a restriction equivalent to government if one's entire society is made up of malls.
      • 10y ago
• the8472 10y ago
  Is the distinction of government censorship and censorship by entities which have a dominating position on some communication channels and with a budget larger than some small countries really that sensible? Or put differently, is there even a "public space" where you could speak freely on the internet? It's almost always some company's server that you're using. Distributed and decentralized solutions only manage to compete in niche applications while face to face speech manages to not rely on any private carrier.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• blfr 10y ago
  That's a very US-centric approach. American first amendment is about government censorship. Free speech is about free exchange of ideas. That's the usual benefit and justification.
• nshepperd 10y ago
  No it's not. The first amendment is not free speech, and America isn't the world. Chilling effects can flow from anyone with power, regardless of whether they are "officially" recognised as a "government". If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, that has exactly the same consequences as the same due to an oppressive "government". ETA: Here is article 19 of the UDHR, which correctly does not mention governments: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
  • unprepare 10y ago
    >If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, then law enforcement has failed, not freedom of speech. its illegal to be a murderous thug, so if there are murderous thugs running around threatening people they should be dealt with within the existing law. I'm not even sure what your argument is - we should enact laws protecting free speech from these murderous thugs? as if those laws would somehow deter them more than the laws against murder?
  • pigpaws 10y ago
    do you mean government encroachment like this: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/housing-authority-demands-ga-man-remove-elaborate-civil-war-display/ http://www.theamericanmirror.com/housing-authority-demands-g... even though you may disagree with the man?
  • jasode 10y ago
    >Here is article 19 of the UDHR, which correctly does not mention governments: You're reading it incorrectly. It doesn't mention "government" at that particular line because the document[1] itself was created as an initiative of government (or quasi-government committee if you think of the United Nations that way) ... as a reaction to Nazi government's failings... and it is aimed at an audience of other governments as a baseline for policy. It is not a document for corporations like Facebook or a religious organization of Muslims. Even in the document's preamble, it states, "Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, " Notice that it says "member nations" and not "member corporations" or "member schools", or "member social clubs". The "nations" are "governments". For example, if you don't interpret the UDHR as a "government" document, the text from Article 15 doesn't make sense: "Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality." That line also doesn't have the word "government." That doesn't mean companies like Facebook were giving out "national citizenship id cards" and shouldn't ever withhold them so people are stateless. It's governments that have that power. > If people are afraid to speak their mind due to murderous vigilantes, that has exactly the same consequences as the same due to an oppressive "government". As others have pointed out, the laws against murder/assault already handle that case. [1]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...
• base698 10y ago
  Mill says you're wrong: Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. I wish more people would read On Liberty
• singlow 10y ago
  Not sure why you think that government censorship is the only enemy of the noblest form of free speech. The government is the only actor restricted by the constitution, because the constitution's purpose is to set the structure and limitations of the government. However, the ideal of free speech is much greater and the enemies to free speech are, in today's world, much less often the Government and much more often economic or social. While it would not make sense to try to attack them through constitutional arguments, the ideals of the first amendment are a considerable reflection of greater ideals of free speech to which we should still strive. Why should we not exercise our own free speech to speak out against economic and social forces which try to restrict it? It is not a dilution of the term to apply it in this way. It has since its inception referred to freedom from all sorts of restriction. Bertrand Russell in 1922 wrote: "Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thought. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search." (Free Though and Official Propaganda)[https://books.google.com/books?id=QY8DAAAAMAAJ https://books.google.com/books?id=QY8DAAAAMAAJ]
• drewcrawford 10y ago
  As others have said, freedom of speech is not the first Amendment and America is not the world. But even American thinkers themselves define it more broadly, (and always have) e.g. > What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would leave not the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable... [0] > Protection against the tyranny of government isn't enough; there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling [1] > Liberty of circulating is as essential to liberty as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value. [2] Then of course even if what you have in mind is the First Amendment, its whole historical trajectory is to expand to apply to more things. As written it applied to only Congress as distinct from any other form of government, and I note the conspicuous absence of that limitation in how you describe the freedom. And this may be news to some, but we started applying it to private actors long before I was born (Wickersham v. City of Columbia, Brentwood Acad. v. TN Sec. School Ath. Assn, etc.) So it has a long history of ever-expanding scope, and of course when you look at what e.g. Madison thought it was broad from its very birth. Now we get to > Well, the real world will never let you have that type of "free speech". If it bothers people... they can start another website/college that allows it. ... In other words, the non-government "free speech" has a cost and sometimes, society doesn't want to pay for it I'm trying not to poison the well, but this same argument made here has implications for e.g. civil rights. "If you want a hotel that lets black people stay there you can start another one. Racial integration has a cost and society doesn't want to pay for it." But we decided as a society (over many folks' objections) that racial equality was important, and so we wrote legislation. Some people really disliked that at the time; some people still dislike it. However as we no longer have segregated bathrooms I think it is hard to argue that "the real world will never let you" establish human rights, it is actually the story of our country. You are certainly free to believe that there we have no fundamental human right to expressing a political position on the Internet without living in fear of being fired from our job; that we have come quite far enough, thanks. You can also believe that one's "right" to do that is trumped by other people's rights to contract freely. But I think in that case one should just admit that they don't see free speech as a fundamental human right. There is no shame in that position. And there is no need to hide behind an economic argument from a dark time in our history, there is no need to accuse folks who do see free speech as fundamental as "diluting" the term or that we live somewhere other than "the real world". Just saying "I don't believe it's a right" is a much faster, tighter, and more difficult argument to attack. [0] Federalist 84 [1] JS Mill, On Liberty [2] SCOTUS, Lovell v. City of Griffin
• kevin_b_er 10y ago
  Where do you have free speech? Where will you have said free speech that someone else can actually hear? The problem is that the internet looks like a public commons, but it is not. It is private. The illusion of the public commons on the internet it at odds with the notion of free speech. It it this seeming disconnect that causes people to realize there's a problem. In fact as privatization increases, you will realize the space where you may exercise your supposed right to free speech will eventually become non existent. You have no rights when everything is private and governed by contracts that supersede "rights" as a condition of functioning in society. Further, you may eventually learn you can't exercise any rights if everything were private.