4 ms·

> and that "free speech" is only about forbiding the government from limiting the expression of opinions, not of anyone else. > This is true, and a big problem

> and that "free speech" is only about forbiding the government from limiting the expression of opinions, not of anyone else. > This is true, and a big problem. This is not true, it is a product of people confusing two different things: > the first amendment to the constitution of the United States > the unalienable right to freedom of speech The american tradition is founded on the principle that there are natural rights that can never be given (as people are born with them), only taken away. Among these rights it's the right to freedom of speech and of assembly. The first amendment (along with the rest) only clarifies the role the founding fathers intended to the government they created: one that shouldn't be allowed to infringe on these rights by legislation or otherwise. The first amendment doesn't give the right to freedom of speech, only prevents the government from infringing on it, that's right. But it doesn't follow from that that private companies cannot infringe on anyone's freedom of speech, it is a non sequitur. Private companies can and do infringe on people freedoms of speech and assembly all the time, and what happened to this reporter seems to be another example of that. The thing is: it is perfectly in their right to do so, as it is very clear in their terms of service that they reserve that right, the right to control what can and what cannot be published on their properties. The confusion comes from the fact that most of these companies (social media companies) like to pretend that's not the case, that they are proponents of freedom of speech even when it is inconvenient to the powerful. For an example of that see the Arab Spring, what was publicized in those days as "a revolution powered by social media", "a media where people can freely express their thoughts and exercise their freedom of assembly without government interference". As we came to realize in the subsequent years is that it was only true because 1) governments underestimated something they still didn't fully understand and 2) there was a temporary alignment between the position of these companies and that one of the revolutionary. This alignment is over now. Governments worldwide pressure and succeed in making these companies to remove inconvenient speech from their services (examples abound). In other cases perfectly valid forms of speech gets removed, suppressed or banned from their services for no other reason as they don't align to these companies goals. It's their right to do so and they exercise it. The important thing is: let's not pretend they are not suppressing speech, curtailing freedom of assembly only because it's their right to do so. They do curtail freedom of speech (on their premises), they do ban speech that is valid but inconvenient to their goals and objectives. As is their right. It is just that they lose the claim to be (as in the case of a particular service) "bastions of freedom of speech" when they do so.

bambax 10y ago
We seem to be of the same opinion? But you don't seem to think something should be done about it, and I do.
- luso_brazilian 10y ago
  We are mostly of the same opinion including on the need of something being done about it. My only objections are: 1) freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with the government or its ability to curtail it. It is a natural right, one that everybody is born with and one that cannot be given, only taken away. 2) social media sites are private property of their owners and, as such, they can impose any limit they want within its (virtual) premises. The solution to the problem is not regulating it (that in my opinion would increase the ability to curtail the freedom of speech) but to revert to the descentralized web of links that used to define the World Wide Web. People can self publish and should do it, be it video, audio or text. People should also, if they want to compete, to invest as much resources trying to be heard as these companies invest trying to be gatekeepers. We agree in general, just not on these small points.

bambax 10y ago

We seem to be of the same opinion? But you don't seem to think something should be done about it, and I do.

luso_brazilian 10y ago
We are mostly of the same opinion including on the need of something being done about it. My only objections are: 1) freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with the government or its ability to curtail it. It is a natural right, one that everybody is born with and one that cannot be given, only taken away. 2) social media sites are private property of their owners and, as such, they can impose any limit they want within its (virtual) premises. The solution to the problem is not regulating it (that in my opinion would increase the ability to curtail the freedom of speech) but to revert to the descentralized web of links that used to define the World Wide Web. People can self publish and should do it, be it video, audio or text. People should also, if they want to compete, to invest as much resources trying to be heard as these companies invest trying to be gatekeepers. We agree in general, just not on these small points.