5 ms·

Actually, lots of people argue that platform X is messing with their "right" to "free speech" whenever this issue comes up. Even the article mentioned this. Th

Actually, lots of people argue that platform X is messing with their "right" to "free speech" whenever this issue comes up. Even the article mentioned this. That's why I brought it up.

mindslight 10y ago
And they're correct. The law: > Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech Notice how "freedom of speech" is referenced as an external concept, not defined by the law? A right is a more general concept than an inherently narrow-scoped legal attempt to support it.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  They aren't correct. A company or web platform can't take away your right to free speech. They can just refuse to help you reach their users.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Rights apply to the qualitative characteristics of a situation. When a company controls a public method of communication, then their diktats have the equivalent effect as governmental law. Would you say that a US citizen in North Korea still has an unoppressed right to free speech? (FWIW, your right to free speech can't be "taken away", by anyone. That's the thing about rights - you have them regardless of whether or not they're being oppressed.)
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      > When said company controls a public method of communication, then their diktats have the equivalent effect as governmental law. Whatever effect they have, unless there's something in the constitution or our laws which prevents them from doing it, then they can infringe away. The constitution recognizes our right to free speech and prevents our government from passing infringing laws (we've made exceptions for public safety - inciting violence or panic for example), but is there something that prevents a company from infringing on your right to free speech? And even if there was, how exactly is twitter refusing to broadcast your message infringing on your right to speak? You don't have an inherent right to publish messages on twitter.com, correct? > Would you say that a US citizen in North Korea still has an unoppressed right to free speech? How is this relevant?
      - mindslight 10y ago
        > Whatever effect they have, unless there's something in the constitution or our laws which prevents them from doing it, then they can infringe away... is there something that prevents a company from infringing on your right to free speech? No, there is not. However, not being illegal does not erase something. > how exactly is twitter refusing to broadcast your message infringing on your right to speak? Twitter has deliberately set itself up as a platform upon which users speak with each other. Through success, it has become a de facto common. This specific "refusal to broadcast your message" is based solely upon what you are saying. Controlling what others say is, by definition, infringing on free speech. A US citizen in NK has ended up in NK voluntarily. Therefore under a misguided [0] theory of contracts-above-all, they have voluntarily chosen not to exercise free speech and thus their right is not being infringed! [0] As computer scientists, we're well aware that layered complexity inevitably creates contradictions. Any analysis of rights must therefore be in terms of overall qualitative behavior rather than focused on "primitives" that will be easily usurped.
        jjnoakes 10y ago
        > Controlling what others say is, by definition, infringing on free speech. But they aren't controlling what you say. They just aren't broadcasting it. You can say hate all you want (within the law). Set up your own web site. Buy a plane and fly a banner over the beach. Go set up in a public place and start talking out loud. Twitter isn't stopping you from speaking or sharing your ideas. Calling it "infringement" because a commercial entity refuses to broadcast your message is, in my opinion, incorrect.
        mindslight 10y ago
        > But they aren't controlling what you say. They just aren't broadcasting it. "I'm not hitting my brother, I'm just flailing my arms and walking forward." Their voluntarily-created situation is that they are broadcasting what you say. By setting up an ultimatum that if you say something they do not like they will no longer transmit what you say, they are forming a control. This obviously isn't absolute control [0], it is limited by how much you rely on Twitter. I personally am not reliant on Twitter, but many people are and that is what we are discussing. Your argument is deliberately eschewing this concept of reliance, essentially attempting to justify all emergent behavior as implicitly moral so long as the primitives have been followed. As I said, this is a dead end. Otherwise we would not even need a legal system because the laws of physics would suffice. > You can say hate all you want (within the law). Set up your own web site. Buy a plane and fly a banner over the beach. Go set up in a public place and start talking out loud. Other avenues of speech do not justify controls on a particular one. If this were true, the government controlling what you could say on the Internet wouldn't be an infringement, because you still had other outlets. In another comment, you allude to your ISP restricting what you can publish online as wrong. How exactly does this differ from Twitter, besides being a different OSI layer? [0] Although there is actually no such thing. Even government is limited to post-facto punishment, and only if they can catch you.
hsod 10y ago
I get annoyed by this comment in every thread not because no one believes that but because it attacks a very weak form of an interesting argument. The stronger form would lead to much better discussion, and these comments frame the argument in a (IMO) unproductive way.
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  Yeah, it's not a strawman exactly, but it's a - clayman? Gingerbread man?
  - xiaoma 10y ago
    The "weak man" argument: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo...

Actually, lots of people argue that platform X is messing with their "right" to "free speech" whenever this issue comes up. Even the article mentioned this. That's why I brought it up.

mindslight 10y ago

And they're correct. The law: > Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech Notice how "freedom of speech" is referenced as an external concept, not defined by the law? A right is a more general concept than an inherently narrow-scoped legal attempt to support it.

jjnoakes 10y ago
They aren't correct. A company or web platform can't take away your right to free speech. They can just refuse to help you reach their users.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Rights apply to the qualitative characteristics of a situation. When a company controls a public method of communication, then their diktats have the equivalent effect as governmental law. Would you say that a US citizen in North Korea still has an unoppressed right to free speech? (FWIW, your right to free speech can't be "taken away", by anyone. That's the thing about rights - you have them regardless of whether or not they're being oppressed.)
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    > When said company controls a public method of communication, then their diktats have the equivalent effect as governmental law. Whatever effect they have, unless there's something in the constitution or our laws which prevents them from doing it, then they can infringe away. The constitution recognizes our right to free speech and prevents our government from passing infringing laws (we've made exceptions for public safety - inciting violence or panic for example), but is there something that prevents a company from infringing on your right to free speech? And even if there was, how exactly is twitter refusing to broadcast your message infringing on your right to speak? You don't have an inherent right to publish messages on twitter.com, correct? > Would you say that a US citizen in North Korea still has an unoppressed right to free speech? How is this relevant?
    - mindslight 10y ago
      > Whatever effect they have, unless there's something in the constitution or our laws which prevents them from doing it, then they can infringe away... is there something that prevents a company from infringing on your right to free speech? No, there is not. However, not being illegal does not erase something. > how exactly is twitter refusing to broadcast your message infringing on your right to speak? Twitter has deliberately set itself up as a platform upon which users speak with each other. Through success, it has become a de facto common. This specific "refusal to broadcast your message" is based solely upon what you are saying. Controlling what others say is, by definition, infringing on free speech. A US citizen in NK has ended up in NK voluntarily. Therefore under a misguided [0] theory of contracts-above-all, they have voluntarily chosen not to exercise free speech and thus their right is not being infringed! [0] As computer scientists, we're well aware that layered complexity inevitably creates contradictions. Any analysis of rights must therefore be in terms of overall qualitative behavior rather than focused on "primitives" that will be easily usurped.
      - jjnoakes 10y ago
        > Controlling what others say is, by definition, infringing on free speech. But they aren't controlling what you say. They just aren't broadcasting it. You can say hate all you want (within the law). Set up your own web site. Buy a plane and fly a banner over the beach. Go set up in a public place and start talking out loud. Twitter isn't stopping you from speaking or sharing your ideas. Calling it "infringement" because a commercial entity refuses to broadcast your message is, in my opinion, incorrect.
        mindslight 10y ago
        > But they aren't controlling what you say. They just aren't broadcasting it. "I'm not hitting my brother, I'm just flailing my arms and walking forward." Their voluntarily-created situation is that they are broadcasting what you say. By setting up an ultimatum that if you say something they do not like they will no longer transmit what you say, they are forming a control. This obviously isn't absolute control [0], it is limited by how much you rely on Twitter. I personally am not reliant on Twitter, but many people are and that is what we are discussing. Your argument is deliberately eschewing this concept of reliance, essentially attempting to justify all emergent behavior as implicitly moral so long as the primitives have been followed. As I said, this is a dead end. Otherwise we would not even need a legal system because the laws of physics would suffice. > You can say hate all you want (within the law). Set up your own web site. Buy a plane and fly a banner over the beach. Go set up in a public place and start talking out loud. Other avenues of speech do not justify controls on a particular one. If this were true, the government controlling what you could say on the Internet wouldn't be an infringement, because you still had other outlets. In another comment, you allude to your ISP restricting what you can publish online as wrong. How exactly does this differ from Twitter, besides being a different OSI layer? [0] Although there is actually no such thing. Even government is limited to post-facto punishment, and only if they can catch you.

hsod 10y ago

I get annoyed by this comment in every thread not because no one believes that but because it attacks a very weak form of an interesting argument. The stronger form would lead to much better discussion, and these comments frame the argument in a (IMO) unproductive way.

nikcheerla 10y ago
Yeah, it's not a strawman exactly, but it's a - clayman? Gingerbread man?
- xiaoma 10y ago
  The "weak man" argument: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo...