4 ms·
>It's interesting that many who advocate a "free speech über alles" approach have a curious exemption for property rights You find this to be a curious exempti
by jamestnz 10y ago
>It's interesting that many who advocate a "free speech über alles" approach have a curious exemption for property rights
You find this to be a curious exemption? I think the term "freedom of speech" generally means the freedom to let your ideas be known without fearing official (i.e. government) reprisal or suppression.
I don't think "freedom of speech" has ever been generally understood to mean that companies/venues/clubs/etc cannot regulate communication according to their own rules, or have an editorial policy where they choose what gets published and what doesn't.
The right of Facebook to set their own rules on their "property" (websites) absolutely trumps your desire to force them to air your views, both morally and legally. This has no effect on your freedom of speech (as that term is traditionally applied) -- because Facebook has no monopoly on speech venues.
>Should Facebook's property rights overrule my free speech rights?
Yes, because "declining to provide you with a free unlimited platform for speech" is not the same thing as "denying freedom of speech".
I don't think this is a particularly controversial view.
- ewzimm 10y agoI don't think this is controversial at all. If someone decides to spraypaint a racial slur on my car, am I denying them free speech by cleaning it off? Anyone is free to make their own Diaspora or GNU Social, but the idea that any kind of editing of user submissions to your website is unethical suppression of free speech could have some really bad consequences.
- rmc 10y agoAnd yet, this article often refers to Google possibly taking down search results. The article also talks about individual people committing murder, something that's already a crime, rarely about state actions. If a lone murderer & criminal counts as a "threat to free speech", why not talk about who owns the space?
- Dylan16807 10y agoGoogle is supposed to accurately represent the internet. And sometimes monopolies lose rights that other companies have. Facebook you could perhaps argue. Twitter and reddit are not that big. When murders are part of a political campaign, they stop being 'lone'.
- Kalium 10y agoGoogle taking down search results is mentioned because it is an act forced by governments. Twitter and Facebook choosing to take down content they don't like is different in character because it is not.
- moultano 10y agoIt's important to distinguish between rights and values. Yes, they have a right to restrict speech on their platform. If they value free speech, they shouldn't. The legal guarantee of free speech is just one expression of a more general value.