4 ms·

Is that the 'real test'? I think this is an example where the use of the term 'free speech' confuses the discussion. Free speech can mean 'limited interference

by gwright 10y ago

Is that the 'real test'? I think this is an example where the use of the term 'free speech' confuses the discussion. Free speech can mean 'limited interference by government' (i.e. U.S. First Amendment rationale) and then there is another meaning, 'hands-off editorial policy'. The two things are related but are not at all the same and I often see the rationale for one being applied to the other. In this case you are suggesting that a non-governmental actor should have a hands-off editorial policy with regard to 'reprehensible content'. To me this is an attempt to apply a 1st Amendment rationale to a private actor, and it doesn't make sense. I have no problem at all with private entities crafting their own editorial/business policies such that they don't facilitate or participate in enabling 'reprehensible' content/activities. Down thread someone asked if 'openly racist white supremacist content' would be hosted. I hope not and I would not think less of a hosting company that refused to host that content. It is a mistake to insist that private entities must engage in the same hands-off behavior regarding content and free-speech that we rightly expect of the government.

chii 10y ago
When your views are very radical or nonconformist, conservative policies would choose to reject it. Why would a company risk reputation loss for no real gain? But this argument is the very cause of censorship. If there's a policy of non editorial interference, the problem won't occur, and the conservative company have an argument to fall back on: "it's our policy not to hinder free speech".
- gwright 10y ago
  I could also ask why companies would risk reputation loss for hosting 'reprehensible' or 'abhorrent' content. Your comment also illustrates the confusing notion that a restrictive editorial policy is 'censorship'. The term 'censorship' was once reserved for government restrictions but now is unfortunately wielded as a weapon against the editorial policies of private entities. By neutering the term it makes it much more difficult to talk with clarity about the two different concepts. Government censorship is much more problematic. Obviously the marketplace ultimately decides if a private entity is making wise editorial decisions. Public discussion of those policies is reasonable but that discussion can't be founded on the unqualified notion that 'censorship' is bad otherwise there would be no room for editorial decisions at all -- which is an absurd outcome.

by gwright 10y ago

chii 10y ago

When your views are very radical or nonconformist, conservative policies would choose to reject it. Why would a company risk reputation loss for no real gain? But this argument is the very cause of censorship. If there's a policy of non editorial interference, the problem won't occur, and the conservative company have an argument to fall back on: "it's our policy not to hinder free speech".

gwright 10y ago
I could also ask why companies would risk reputation loss for hosting 'reprehensible' or 'abhorrent' content. Your comment also illustrates the confusing notion that a restrictive editorial policy is 'censorship'. The term 'censorship' was once reserved for government restrictions but now is unfortunately wielded as a weapon against the editorial policies of private entities. By neutering the term it makes it much more difficult to talk with clarity about the two different concepts. Government censorship is much more problematic. Obviously the marketplace ultimately decides if a private entity is making wise editorial decisions. Public discussion of those policies is reasonable but that discussion can't be founded on the unqualified notion that 'censorship' is bad otherwise there would be no room for editorial decisions at all -- which is an absurd outcome.