4 ms·

There is more to the idea of free speech than simply the first amendment. This essay explains it well: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-fi

There is more to the idea of free speech than simply the first amendment. This essay explains it well: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first... The general gist is: imagine a world where women who advocate for suffrage and women's rights are ostracized from society, rejected from conferences and fired from their jobs. Those of us who favor a broader concept of free speech feel this is a bad state of affairs even if it isn't Congress doing it.

veddox 10y ago
I would say that in a society like that, there is more amiss than simply a lack of free speech. After all, there are other human rights. However, I see what you mean, and not being a constitutional scholar I shall cede the point. Nonetheless, you have only addressed one half of a point out of my original three. (You cannot compare a website like Imzy with society at large is what I was trying to drive at in point A.) What do you say to the other two?
- Fnoord 10y ago
  > I would say that in a society like that, there is more amiss than simply a lack of free speech. Every society (and community) has norms which are acceptable, and those which are not. If a person decides to not live according to those norms they're an outcast and will be dealt with as such. The society is like a living organism which will protect its norms in order to survive akin to an auto immune system. Because of these principles every society lives within its own bubble, too. I suppose Von Trier's Dogville touches upon the subject, but there's countless examples available from Swartz to Snowden. If someone has another (or better, more accurate) example I'm interested hearing yours.
jasode 10y ago
>imagine a world where women who advocate for suffrage and women's rights are [...], rejected from conferences Your expanded idea of free speech is noble but it's not possible for society to provide. Free speech allowed by the government is possible. Free speech hosted and paid for by private commercial entities is impossible -- in any long-term sustaining way. The "free speech on commercial entities" would require 2 extra draconian laws that citizens would never agree to: 1) a law to force private entities to pay for speech they disagree with on their private platforms and in their private conferences even if that opposing speech causes them to lose the funding that allows for them to pay for it in the first place. 2) a law to force web surfers' eyeballs[1] to view content they don't agree with, and force people to buy tickets to conferences with speakers they don't want to hear Free speech with private commercial entities creates a contradiction of priorities. I've written about this impossibility before.[2] To make it relate to HN readers, imagine after creating a Digital Ocean account and paying $9/month for VPS to host a blog about photography or enthusiast forum about cars, you must now pay for opinion pieces about Trump or Clinton (whichever you disagree with). The draconian law requires you pay for it because nobody's opinion is allowed to be marginalized. Also, the web users visiting that new site are required to show video proof (maybe via iPhone/Android camera) that they've read the marginalized opinions. (To satisfy the proverbial "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... if no visitors go to the web page and read it, it's effectively not free speech.) [1] Ludovico technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#/media/File:Clockwork%2771.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#/med... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12158682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12158682
- summerdown2 10y ago
  > 1) Private entities must pay for speech they disagree with on their private platforms and in their private conferences even if that opposing speech causes them to lose the funding that allows for them to pay for it in the first place. Just thinking about your point (1), I'm not sure it is impossible, depending on the industry. Isn't it just the straightforward position for most companies that are considered common carriers - they can't discriminate?
  - jasode 10y ago
    >Isn't it just the straightforward position for most companies that are considered common carriers - they can't discriminate? (For more about that won't work, see my previous comment I linked in the footnote.) It wouldn't make any sense for the government to forcefully reclassify a company like Facebook as a "common carrier"[1] like a telecommunications provider because FB is sponsored by advertisers. The ISPs (with subscribers) can be common carriers but not websites (with ad sponsors). A "common carrier" designation from the government doesn't come with a $20 billion payment to Facebook from the government (taxpayers) to make up for loss of advertisers pulling their ad dollars on platform that allows speech they don't like. Likewise, since "common carrier" doesn't mean users are forced keep their Facebook accounts and forced to read newsfeeds of opinions they disagree with, it doesn't solve the problem. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...
- makomk 10y ago
  Not everything has to be a law. For example, one could imagine a world where the social norm was that services embodied some more generalized idea of free speech, and people are reluctant to use services that don't do this because one day it's likely to be used against them. Instead, the press are pushing the opposite social norm, that sites are somehow morally obligated to restrict speech: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/social-media-companies-are-not-free-speech-platforms http://motherboard.vice.com/read/social-media-companies-are-...
  - 10y ago

veddox 10y ago

I would say that in a society like that, there is more amiss than simply a lack of free speech. After all, there are other human rights. However, I see what you mean, and not being a constitutional scholar I shall cede the point. Nonetheless, you have only addressed one half of a point out of my original three. (You cannot compare a website like Imzy with society at large is what I was trying to drive at in point A.) What do you say to the other two?

Fnoord 10y ago
> I would say that in a society like that, there is more amiss than simply a lack of free speech. Every society (and community) has norms which are acceptable, and those which are not. If a person decides to not live according to those norms they're an outcast and will be dealt with as such. The society is like a living organism which will protect its norms in order to survive akin to an auto immune system. Because of these principles every society lives within its own bubble, too. I suppose Von Trier's Dogville touches upon the subject, but there's countless examples available from Swartz to Snowden. If someone has another (or better, more accurate) example I'm interested hearing yours.

jasode 10y ago

>imagine a world where women who advocate for suffrage and women's rights are [...], rejected from conferences Your expanded idea of free speech is noble but it's not possible for society to provide. Free speech allowed by the government is possible. Free speech hosted and paid for by private commercial entities is impossible -- in any long-term sustaining way. The "free speech on commercial entities" would require 2 extra draconian laws that citizens would never agree to: 1) a law to force private entities to pay for speech they disagree with on their private platforms and in their private conferences even if that opposing speech causes them to lose the funding that allows for them to pay for it in the first place. 2) a law to force web surfers' eyeballs[1] to view content they don't agree with, and force people to buy tickets to conferences with speakers they don't want to hear Free speech with private commercial entities creates a contradiction of priorities. I've written about this impossibility before.[2] To make it relate to HN readers, imagine after creating a Digital Ocean account and paying $9/month for VPS to host a blog about photography or enthusiast forum about cars, you must now pay for opinion pieces about Trump or Clinton (whichever you disagree with). The draconian law requires you pay for it because nobody's opinion is allowed to be marginalized. Also, the web users visiting that new site are required to show video proof (maybe via iPhone/Android camera) that they've read the marginalized opinions. (To satisfy the proverbial "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... if no visitors go to the web page and read it, it's effectively not free speech.) [1] Ludovico technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#/media/File:Clockwork%2771.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#/med... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12158682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12158682

summerdown2 10y ago
> 1) Private entities must pay for speech they disagree with on their private platforms and in their private conferences even if that opposing speech causes them to lose the funding that allows for them to pay for it in the first place. Just thinking about your point (1), I'm not sure it is impossible, depending on the industry. Isn't it just the straightforward position for most companies that are considered common carriers - they can't discriminate?
- jasode 10y ago
  >Isn't it just the straightforward position for most companies that are considered common carriers - they can't discriminate? (For more about that won't work, see my previous comment I linked in the footnote.) It wouldn't make any sense for the government to forcefully reclassify a company like Facebook as a "common carrier"[1] like a telecommunications provider because FB is sponsored by advertisers. The ISPs (with subscribers) can be common carriers but not websites (with ad sponsors). A "common carrier" designation from the government doesn't come with a $20 billion payment to Facebook from the government (taxpayers) to make up for loss of advertisers pulling their ad dollars on platform that allows speech they don't like. Likewise, since "common carrier" doesn't mean users are forced keep their Facebook accounts and forced to read newsfeeds of opinions they disagree with, it doesn't solve the problem. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...
makomk 10y ago
Not everything has to be a law. For example, one could imagine a world where the social norm was that services embodied some more generalized idea of free speech, and people are reluctant to use services that don't do this because one day it's likely to be used against them. Instead, the press are pushing the opposite social norm, that sites are somehow morally obligated to restrict speech: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/social-media-companies-are-not-free-speech-platforms http://motherboard.vice.com/read/social-media-companies-are-...
- 10y ago