5 ms·

Freedom of speech* *To those who own the presses.

by danjoc 10y ago

Daishiman 10y ago
Would you like some lube to beat up that dead horse?
intro-b 10y ago
this seems like a pretty standard enforcement of their policy - since real-life information was being shared on that community for the purposes of targeted harassment, banning has always been their primary recourse
zdw 10y ago
The first amendment only applies to the government making rules restricting speech. Reddit is privately owned and run, so they get to make whatever rules they want.
- danjoc 10y ago
  That's what I just said, but you won't be modded down for it like I was.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    It's definitely not what you said.
    - greenbean123123 10y ago
      It absolutely is what danjoc said. danjoc said that freedom of speech is only for those who own the press. zdw replied and said Reddit is privately owned and can do whatever they want. I presume that danjoc interpreted "privately owned" as an instance of "those who own the press", which does not seem to be a stretch at all. Do you still not see it?
      - comex 10y ago
        Everyone always equates "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment. They're not the same. Free speech is a moral principle, which different people support to different extents, but of which the First Amendment is merely one, US-centric, embodiment. That said, Reddit didn't ban this subreddit for being alt-right, so the point is fairly moot.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        "Freedom of speech is only for those who own the press" implies that only owners of the press have freedom of speech. That is not true -- everyone has freedom of speech vis a vis the government as zdw pointed out, whether they "own the press" or not.
        greenbean123123 10y ago
        Free speech outlined in the Constitution is constrained by how loud you can shout. Groups like the alt-right are fueled, in part, because of the belief that they are subjected to unfair and targeted censorship on platforms like Reddit. If they are not able to participate in the discussions being had there, other groups are able to control the narrative to the alt-right's detriment. Being able to defend yourself with your voice is a moot point because, in the age of the Internet, that is not where the discussions are taking place.
      - nkozyra 10y ago
        That has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - planckscnst 10y ago
    I think you are being downvoted because it is being perceived as implicating that reddit is making a political statement about Alt-right.
    - danjoc 10y ago
      I think you're right about that. It's rarely a popular statement among nationalists in this country. Some people really do think they have free speech in every context and get angry when you point out they aren't really as free as they seem to think. The alt-righters would mod me down too, but it's a sharp pointy stick. I like to jab it into people to make them think.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago
  > The first amendment There's more to free speech than one country's constitution. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    Then start you're own web site. Do you have unfettered free speech on HN?
    - stefantalpalaru 10y ago
      > Do you have unfettered free speech on HN? I'm hellbanned on HN and my only comments that reach your filter bubble are those manually approved by a moderator (out of a maximum of 4-5 I can make in a day, due to draconian rate limiting). So no, there's nothing resembling free speech here - just moderator approved speech in the PR extension of a VC firm.
  - fooey 10y ago
    There is no right to force a private business to broadcast your speech.
    - scintill76 10y ago
      Is a printing business allowed to refuse to print gay wedding announcements, because they do not support gay weddings? Maybe you're consistent, but I feel like this would often draw out contradictory positions. Is it morally different if one is a paying customer and the other is a non-paying user?
- psyc 10y ago
  Honestly, how many more hundreds of times am I going to read this facile straw man, in these exact same tired words? You can't possibly believe you're saying anything original or enlightening regarding the actual issue, can you? Why am I on this site writing this comment? What am I doing with my life?
- molmalo 10y ago
  Honest question: If I was the owner of an ISP, and just for this exercise assume that I am providing my services in an area where there is at least one competitor (so I don't have a monopoly). And as a human being, I disliked certain topics; for this example, the topics are radical Islam websites, pornography sites and cat pictures. Now the question; As I am the owner of a private company, am I entitled to block access to all the sites that show pictures of Bin Laden, boobs or kitties? I might be sued by site owners and some of my clients... but isn't this situation similar to the way some cable network can choose to broadcast certain channels and not others? I am all in favor for free access to information, and against censure, even when I might dislike certain topics. But I can only see a blurry line between people's right to access something and the owner of a network to block said access.
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    That is to an extent what regulated as a utility was about (there was other parts), it's also why net neutrality is important for more that just a fair market argument.
CharlesW 10y ago
Freedom of speech* *Doesn't mean freedom from consequences
- psyc 10y ago
  Why do you bother posting cliched platitudes that a bot could post?
noir_lord 10y ago
Freedom of speech means protection against the Government, Reddit is a private organisation and it doesn't apply. Also Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences.
tyre 10y ago
The 1st Amendment of the United States applies to Congress, not everything. Even in that context, freedom of speech has limits (e.g. libel, slander, child pornography, sexual harassment, etc.). It's not unreasonable to ban hate-speech.
- solipsism 10y ago
  It's not unreasonable to ban hate-speech In the US it is, in general, unconstitutional to ban hate speech (except when it also happens to be unprotected speech, such as a threat). But that has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand, of course, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
- striking 10y ago
  It's a ban on doxxing, not on hate speech. There are plenty of things on reddit people consider hate speech, but they remain. r/altright was worse than plain hate speech, it was simply hate (in the form of harassment, through doxxing).
chc 10y ago
I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who consider a right to harass to be essential to freedom of speech.
charonn0 10y ago
The reddit software is open source, so I'm not sure "the presses" applies. What you probably meant was "the audience", and no one has a right to that. [0]: https://github.com/reddit/reddit https://github.com/reddit/reddit

Freedom of speech* *To those who own the presses.

by danjoc 10y ago

Freedom of speech* *To those who own the presses.

Daishiman 10y ago

Would you like some lube to beat up that dead horse?

intro-b 10y ago

this seems like a pretty standard enforcement of their policy - since real-life information was being shared on that community for the purposes of targeted harassment, banning has always been their primary recourse

zdw 10y ago

The first amendment only applies to the government making rules restricting speech. Reddit is privately owned and run, so they get to make whatever rules they want.

danjoc 10y ago
That's what I just said, but you won't be modded down for it like I was.
- twblalock 10y ago
  It's definitely not what you said.
  - greenbean123123 10y ago
    It absolutely is what danjoc said. danjoc said that freedom of speech is only for those who own the press. zdw replied and said Reddit is privately owned and can do whatever they want. I presume that danjoc interpreted "privately owned" as an instance of "those who own the press", which does not seem to be a stretch at all. Do you still not see it?
    - comex 10y ago
      Everyone always equates "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment. They're not the same. Free speech is a moral principle, which different people support to different extents, but of which the First Amendment is merely one, US-centric, embodiment. That said, Reddit didn't ban this subreddit for being alt-right, so the point is fairly moot.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      "Freedom of speech is only for those who own the press" implies that only owners of the press have freedom of speech. That is not true -- everyone has freedom of speech vis a vis the government as zdw pointed out, whether they "own the press" or not.
      - greenbean123123 10y ago
        Free speech outlined in the Constitution is constrained by how loud you can shout. Groups like the alt-right are fueled, in part, because of the belief that they are subjected to unfair and targeted censorship on platforms like Reddit. If they are not able to participate in the discussions being had there, other groups are able to control the narrative to the alt-right's detriment. Being able to defend yourself with your voice is a moot point because, in the age of the Internet, that is not where the discussions are taking place.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      That has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- planckscnst 10y ago
  I think you are being downvoted because it is being perceived as implicating that reddit is making a political statement about Alt-right.
  - danjoc 10y ago
    I think you're right about that. It's rarely a popular statement among nationalists in this country. Some people really do think they have free speech in every context and get angry when you point out they aren't really as free as they seem to think. The alt-righters would mod me down too, but it's a sharp pointy stick. I like to jab it into people to make them think.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
stefantalpalaru 10y ago
> The first amendment There's more to free speech than one country's constitution. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
- woofyman 10y ago
  Then start you're own web site. Do you have unfettered free speech on HN?
  - stefantalpalaru 10y ago
    > Do you have unfettered free speech on HN? I'm hellbanned on HN and my only comments that reach your filter bubble are those manually approved by a moderator (out of a maximum of 4-5 I can make in a day, due to draconian rate limiting). So no, there's nothing resembling free speech here - just moderator approved speech in the PR extension of a VC firm.
- fooey 10y ago
  There is no right to force a private business to broadcast your speech.
  - scintill76 10y ago
    Is a printing business allowed to refuse to print gay wedding announcements, because they do not support gay weddings? Maybe you're consistent, but I feel like this would often draw out contradictory positions. Is it morally different if one is a paying customer and the other is a non-paying user?
psyc 10y ago
Honestly, how many more hundreds of times am I going to read this facile straw man, in these exact same tired words? You can't possibly believe you're saying anything original or enlightening regarding the actual issue, can you? Why am I on this site writing this comment? What am I doing with my life?
molmalo 10y ago
Honest question: If I was the owner of an ISP, and just for this exercise assume that I am providing my services in an area where there is at least one competitor (so I don't have a monopoly). And as a human being, I disliked certain topics; for this example, the topics are radical Islam websites, pornography sites and cat pictures. Now the question; As I am the owner of a private company, am I entitled to block access to all the sites that show pictures of Bin Laden, boobs or kitties? I might be sued by site owners and some of my clients... but isn't this situation similar to the way some cable network can choose to broadcast certain channels and not others? I am all in favor for free access to information, and against censure, even when I might dislike certain topics. But I can only see a blurry line between people's right to access something and the owner of a network to block said access.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  That is to an extent what regulated as a utility was about (there was other parts), it's also why net neutrality is important for more that just a fair market argument.

CharlesW 10y ago

Freedom of speech* *Doesn't mean freedom from consequences

psyc 10y ago
Why do you bother posting cliched platitudes that a bot could post?

noir_lord 10y ago

Freedom of speech means protection against the Government, Reddit is a private organisation and it doesn't apply. Also Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences.

tyre 10y ago

The 1st Amendment of the United States applies to Congress, not everything. Even in that context, freedom of speech has limits (e.g. libel, slander, child pornography, sexual harassment, etc.). It's not unreasonable to ban hate-speech.

solipsism 10y ago
It's not unreasonable to ban hate-speech In the US it is, in general, unconstitutional to ban hate speech (except when it also happens to be unprotected speech, such as a threat). But that has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand, of course, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
striking 10y ago
It's a ban on doxxing, not on hate speech. There are plenty of things on reddit people consider hate speech, but they remain. r/altright was worse than plain hate speech, it was simply hate (in the form of harassment, through doxxing).

chc 10y ago

I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who consider a right to harass to be essential to freedom of speech.

charonn0 10y ago

The reddit software is open source, so I'm not sure "the presses" applies. What you probably meant was "the audience", and no one has a right to that. [0]: https://github.com/reddit/reddit https://github.com/reddit/reddit