5 ms·

Judge: Not running an ad is an exercise in free speech

19 points by 6stringmerc 9y ago

lolc 9y ago
Obligatory https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ "Not listening to my bullshit is violating my free speech rights" actually means "I should be able to force people to listen to my bullshit."
- graphememes 9y ago
  This runs a thin line where orders of powers are in play, what has the most power in a certain realm and what conditions are to be followed or met. Are we arguing legality of Freedom of Speech or are we arguing order of power and rights to all irregardless of ownership and power structures? If it is the former then yes, the law cannot arrest you for speech. If it is the latter, that is harder to ascertain, and I don't think (nor will I assume or paint a broad brush on these individuals) that people mean they want to force people to listen, but they want the same and equal opportunity to voice their opinion. Having the opportunity is not the same as forcing, and I would never conflate these in my mind. If we are arguing that America is the originating power structure and the servers are hosted in American soil, does that mean they must follow these bills to rights? Does the rights of those who claim ownership of the servers factor into the equation and do they have authority to govern whether someone should be capable of censorship? What about the network the opinion travels over? What about the country that the opinion comes from? What about... Many of these cases renders down to ownership case, and Capitalism at times is at disagreement with rights, and in this case, capitalism is what allows these to propagate in a way due to monetary ownership of grounds where opinions are being voiced. It's a very difficult conversation and road to navigate. It's not as simple as your statement renders.
  - lolc 9y ago
    Yes my statement is too simplistic looking at all the issues around free speech. I meant the first amendment in particular and the mistaken belief that "shut up or leave" is a violation of it. So yeah, I criticized people for mistaking the first amendment to mean their absolute right to free speech all while confusing the terms myself.
  - mikelyons 9y ago
    You win "usage of the term 'irregardless' award".
- aaron695 9y ago
  This is BS. So, your country has the right not to host you if they don't like what you say? They can show you the door? XKCD isn't always right. We force little cake companies to work with ideals they don't like, mega companies shouldn't also have to uphold ideals like free speech? Even if they are using pubic spectrums?
  - lolc 9y ago
    You realize the case was about ads? Who exactly can decide what's aired on the public spectrums? Who should be? Should I be able to force a newspaper to print my opinion? Should I be able to interrupt a board meeting to tell the banksters they're destroying the world? Should you be forced to read my opinion on free speech? Must I accept ads in public spaces? Must I accept SPAM? Must I accept that you want to live in the bubble of your Facebook feed? Answers to these questions are not easy. There will always be restrictions placed upon us by society. If you insist on free speech everywhere you haven't met people. And yes where I live people have been sentenced for voicing their opinion. I'm not in favor of it but if you insist on absolutes you won't find peace.
mesozoic 9y ago
Does this imply that adblocking is also free speech
- moomin 9y ago
  That'd be my interpretation...
Mz 9y ago
InfoStream argued the broadcaster's refusal was "pretextual," one designed to garner favor from SiriusXM's preferred customers. God forbid that a business should cater to its best customers. I mean, for shame and all that. /s
valuearb 9y ago
It would be an easier decision if most broadcasters weren't using public property to broadcast with. Long ago it was decided in exchange for the gift of free airwaves they'd accept strict regulation along with the obligation to run "public service" announcements, and to curry favor with powerful politicians. I say grant the airwaves as property to their current controllers, and stop regulating them altogether. Then it's private property and clearly they can broadcast what they and their customers want. Or they can sell to some data service to use their frequencies for high performance networks. Or find even better uses. Public control of broadcasting is just a hidden tool for our political organizations to maintain their power.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Selling part of the spectrum is theft from future generations. At the absolute most there should be leases lasting maybe a decade or two.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    It's no more theft than allowing you to own the property under your house.
    - ninju 9y ago
      Very different "the property under your house" is very tangible discrete thing that you pay to own The airwaves (and the signal being transmitted over it) are nebulous flowing item and giving perpetual ownership rights to what can be delivered on those airwaves is a very powerful right..maybe leasing is the right way
      - valuearb 9y ago
        They can treated effectively as property and there are good reasons to do so. TV and radio frequencies are losing value for media broadcast, but can't be repurposed for better uses such as competing with cable monopolies in data transfer. Ownership rights would make that feasible.
exabrial 9y ago
This seems the opposite direction in the cake baking decisions that have come up of late.
- moomin 9y ago
  You make a good point. I think the difference is that the cake refusal case is founded on 14th amendment rights, whereas the advertiser can't argue that in this case.

19 points by 6stringmerc 9y ago

lolc 9y ago

Obligatory https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ "Not listening to my bullshit is violating my free speech rights" actually means "I should be able to force people to listen to my bullshit."

graphememes 9y ago
This runs a thin line where orders of powers are in play, what has the most power in a certain realm and what conditions are to be followed or met. Are we arguing legality of Freedom of Speech or are we arguing order of power and rights to all irregardless of ownership and power structures? If it is the former then yes, the law cannot arrest you for speech. If it is the latter, that is harder to ascertain, and I don't think (nor will I assume or paint a broad brush on these individuals) that people mean they want to force people to listen, but they want the same and equal opportunity to voice their opinion. Having the opportunity is not the same as forcing, and I would never conflate these in my mind. If we are arguing that America is the originating power structure and the servers are hosted in American soil, does that mean they must follow these bills to rights? Does the rights of those who claim ownership of the servers factor into the equation and do they have authority to govern whether someone should be capable of censorship? What about the network the opinion travels over? What about the country that the opinion comes from? What about... Many of these cases renders down to ownership case, and Capitalism at times is at disagreement with rights, and in this case, capitalism is what allows these to propagate in a way due to monetary ownership of grounds where opinions are being voiced. It's a very difficult conversation and road to navigate. It's not as simple as your statement renders.
- lolc 9y ago
  Yes my statement is too simplistic looking at all the issues around free speech. I meant the first amendment in particular and the mistaken belief that "shut up or leave" is a violation of it. So yeah, I criticized people for mistaking the first amendment to mean their absolute right to free speech all while confusing the terms myself.
- mikelyons 9y ago
  You win "usage of the term 'irregardless' award".
aaron695 9y ago
This is BS. So, your country has the right not to host you if they don't like what you say? They can show you the door? XKCD isn't always right. We force little cake companies to work with ideals they don't like, mega companies shouldn't also have to uphold ideals like free speech? Even if they are using pubic spectrums?
- lolc 9y ago
  You realize the case was about ads? Who exactly can decide what's aired on the public spectrums? Who should be? Should I be able to force a newspaper to print my opinion? Should I be able to interrupt a board meeting to tell the banksters they're destroying the world? Should you be forced to read my opinion on free speech? Must I accept ads in public spaces? Must I accept SPAM? Must I accept that you want to live in the bubble of your Facebook feed? Answers to these questions are not easy. There will always be restrictions placed upon us by society. If you insist on free speech everywhere you haven't met people. And yes where I live people have been sentenced for voicing their opinion. I'm not in favor of it but if you insist on absolutes you won't find peace.

mesozoic 9y ago

Does this imply that adblocking is also free speech

moomin 9y ago
That'd be my interpretation...

Mz 9y ago

InfoStream argued the broadcaster's refusal was "pretextual," one designed to garner favor from SiriusXM's preferred customers. God forbid that a business should cater to its best customers. I mean, for shame and all that. /s

valuearb 9y ago

It would be an easier decision if most broadcasters weren't using public property to broadcast with. Long ago it was decided in exchange for the gift of free airwaves they'd accept strict regulation along with the obligation to run "public service" announcements, and to curry favor with powerful politicians. I say grant the airwaves as property to their current controllers, and stop regulating them altogether. Then it's private property and clearly they can broadcast what they and their customers want. Or they can sell to some data service to use their frequencies for high performance networks. Or find even better uses. Public control of broadcasting is just a hidden tool for our political organizations to maintain their power.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Selling part of the spectrum is theft from future generations. At the absolute most there should be leases lasting maybe a decade or two.
- valuearb 9y ago
  It's no more theft than allowing you to own the property under your house.
  - ninju 9y ago
    Very different "the property under your house" is very tangible discrete thing that you pay to own The airwaves (and the signal being transmitted over it) are nebulous flowing item and giving perpetual ownership rights to what can be delivered on those airwaves is a very powerful right..maybe leasing is the right way
    - valuearb 9y ago
      They can treated effectively as property and there are good reasons to do so. TV and radio frequencies are losing value for media broadcast, but can't be repurposed for better uses such as competing with cable monopolies in data transfer. Ownership rights would make that feasible.

exabrial 9y ago

This seems the opposite direction in the cake baking decisions that have come up of late.

moomin 9y ago
You make a good point. I think the difference is that the cake refusal case is founded on 14th amendment rights, whereas the advertiser can't argue that in this case.