6 ms·

In Support of Free Speech

20 points by robbiemitchell 10y ago

CM30 10y ago
Kudos to him and Shopify for this. Too many companies seem to put their reputation above doing what's right, leading to a situation where pressure from politicial opponents leads to controversial sites being booted off popular platforms. So congrats to Shopify for this. Congrats for telling people that no, you're not going to boot out customers because their work offends people. You may actually be the one 'software as a service' provider I could actually trust.
- fenwick67 10y ago
  They still have a clause in their terms of service that says they can remove anything that is "offensive", "defamatory", "obscene or otherwise objectionable", so you can't really trust that they'll continue this behavior.
norea-armozel 10y ago
Okay I think it needs to be stressed yet again. The freedom to speak isn't the same as the privilege to be heard. You can speak to the air but no one owes you the time to listen. Equally, everyone is free to conduct business but no one is owed customers to make that business profitable. This is something so many faux-centrists miss because in their mind the right to not associate is seen as a moral ill rather than a moral good. They think that all social actions must operate like that of an economy when in practice it's an economy that's shaped by the social actions. To allow groups like Breitbart who knowingly peddle in lies (ex. claims that global warming isn't real and/or significant or that transgender people are disordered/dangerous) is to endorse those lies whether or not you agree with them. There's no gray area when one gives an audience to blatant lies which are being used to shape laws (see FADA). Either you take a stand and oppose the lies and ostracize those who peddle in them or endorse those lies and all their implications. A or not A as Ayn Rand put it.
- Spivak 10y ago
  Freedom of speech is an idea that many people hold well above the very limited constitutional right. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    It's a flawed ideal because no one is owed a hearing from you, me, or anyone else and because it asserts all points of view or beliefs have equal value. The latter being the most troubling implication of free speech absolutism is why I don't bother to listen to or even take stock in the views of Creationists, New Agers, or "alternative medicine" crackpots. Their ideas are worthless until they can be tested by science or show some material results beyond wishful thinking. It's high time people actually take that position rather than cower behind the "there's truth in all things" nonsense. Also, private parties are not legally obligated to carry any/all services/goods/speech just because you and others want it to be the case. There's no such basis of a Fairness Doctrine for the economy (even when taking into account the equal protection clause's interpretation or that of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's protected classes). The moment you try to create convoluted arguments that somehow one must hear, offer up a platform to, anyone without qualification or just compensation then you're supporting free speech but rather supporting forced association beyond what even the most liberal of legal theorists would entertain. Perhaps it's time to reign in this free speech absolutism and admit not everyone has to listen?
    - krapp 10y ago
      Free speech (in the "absolutist" sense you're describing) doesn't necessarily assert that all points of view are equal or equally valid, only that all points of view should be equally expressible. To me, there is nothing in that ideal which insists that lies need to be accepted, or can't be fought against, or disproved. You seem to be arguing that free speech encompasses a greater breadth of opinion than certain ideologies care to admit, rather than actually discrediting it as an ideal. You're accusing others of false equivalence, by way of false dichotomy. You also seem to be assuming that anyone who believes in "absolute free speech" does so to defend right-wing, anti science views, which if so is simply not accurate.

CM30 10y ago

Kudos to him and Shopify for this. Too many companies seem to put their reputation above doing what's right, leading to a situation where pressure from politicial opponents leads to controversial sites being booted off popular platforms. So congrats to Shopify for this. Congrats for telling people that no, you're not going to boot out customers because their work offends people. You may actually be the one 'software as a service' provider I could actually trust.

fenwick67 10y ago
They still have a clause in their terms of service that says they can remove anything that is "offensive", "defamatory", "obscene or otherwise objectionable", so you can't really trust that they'll continue this behavior.

norea-armozel 10y ago

Okay I think it needs to be stressed yet again. The freedom to speak isn't the same as the privilege to be heard. You can speak to the air but no one owes you the time to listen. Equally, everyone is free to conduct business but no one is owed customers to make that business profitable. This is something so many faux-centrists miss because in their mind the right to not associate is seen as a moral ill rather than a moral good. They think that all social actions must operate like that of an economy when in practice it's an economy that's shaped by the social actions. To allow groups like Breitbart who knowingly peddle in lies (ex. claims that global warming isn't real and/or significant or that transgender people are disordered/dangerous) is to endorse those lies whether or not you agree with them. There's no gray area when one gives an audience to blatant lies which are being used to shape laws (see FADA). Either you take a stand and oppose the lies and ostracize those who peddle in them or endorse those lies and all their implications. A or not A as Ayn Rand put it.

Spivak 10y ago
Freedom of speech is an idea that many people hold well above the very limited constitutional right. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  It's a flawed ideal because no one is owed a hearing from you, me, or anyone else and because it asserts all points of view or beliefs have equal value. The latter being the most troubling implication of free speech absolutism is why I don't bother to listen to or even take stock in the views of Creationists, New Agers, or "alternative medicine" crackpots. Their ideas are worthless until they can be tested by science or show some material results beyond wishful thinking. It's high time people actually take that position rather than cower behind the "there's truth in all things" nonsense. Also, private parties are not legally obligated to carry any/all services/goods/speech just because you and others want it to be the case. There's no such basis of a Fairness Doctrine for the economy (even when taking into account the equal protection clause's interpretation or that of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's protected classes). The moment you try to create convoluted arguments that somehow one must hear, offer up a platform to, anyone without qualification or just compensation then you're supporting free speech but rather supporting forced association beyond what even the most liberal of legal theorists would entertain. Perhaps it's time to reign in this free speech absolutism and admit not everyone has to listen?
  - krapp 10y ago
    Free speech (in the "absolutist" sense you're describing) doesn't necessarily assert that all points of view are equal or equally valid, only that all points of view should be equally expressible. To me, there is nothing in that ideal which insists that lies need to be accepted, or can't be fought against, or disproved. You seem to be arguing that free speech encompasses a greater breadth of opinion than certain ideologies care to admit, rather than actually discrediting it as an ideal. You're accusing others of false equivalence, by way of false dichotomy. You also seem to be assuming that anyone who believes in "absolute free speech" does so to defend right-wing, anti science views, which if so is simply not accurate.