5 ms·

>Freedom of Speech says this jerks should be able to have a domain. No it does not, the government is not the entity they are dealing with.

cgag 9y ago
because we have to do this every time: Either the principle is important and you support it or you don't. If you actually believe in freedom of speech you don't get to celebrate censorship by corporate entities because the constitution didn't forbid it.
- srinivgp 9y ago
  Equivocation. "the principle" points at different principles for different people. There are differences in which types of organizations we might wish to forbid from interfering with speech. It is absolutely coherent to believe in a principle which celebrates censorship by corporate entities but not by governmental entities.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  I believe that the right of private parties to be free from having speech compelled or repressed by the State is an important principal which means (except where it runs up against other important principals) permitting private censorship is important for the same reason as prohibiting public censorship.
- tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
  As much as this conversation gets played out, I still find it really interesting. On one hand, there is a difference between free speech as a legal term, and the free speech principles that undergird it. You can argue that Google should abide by free speech principles in allowing open discourse, regardless of the legal requirement to do so. On the other hand, a fundamental component of free speech (expression in this case) principles is the right to free association. Google therefore should exercise its own judgement in selecting those with whom they do associate, and resist external demands to associate with someone they would rather not. I believe that Google should feel free, both legally and socially, to act according to their conscience as a company. However, I believe that their conscience, as a massively powerful part of online communication, should be to remain neutral towards any legal communication that takes place on their platform. I think that's a more effective moral stance than the one they are taking.
- jtmarmon 9y ago
  i support corporations having the freedom to censor whoever they want on their own platforms
  - myrandomcomment 9y ago
    There is nothing wrong per say with your position. This becomes an issue when a corporation that is a delivery medium for information censors based on popular sentiment. If you are a domain register you are selling a resource that is publicly owned and therefor you should not be able to ban things you do not like. If you are a hosting provider of course you do not have to host that content but we need to be careful that the registers are not permitted to censor domains they do not like. The the right to register a domain is a government function we delegated to ICANN there for a domain is covered as "freedom of speech". Can you imagine the Internet if it was around in the 50s & 60s and the domains that would be banned because racism was okay?
- lightbyte 9y ago
  These are completely different concepts. Government != buisness. I can't choose to ignore the US government if I live here and don't like what they do. These people do not have to use Google if they do not agree with their decision.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    The issue here is that Google holds a monopoly on search, which has an incredible effect on the internet. Given that the gateway to the internet for most people is Google, should freedom of speech protections extend to it?
    - gotrecruit 9y ago
      effect
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        Corrected, thank you
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      We're not talking about Search though, we're talking about domain name registrar services. You're conflating separate issues.
    - ggggtez 9y ago
      Considering there are more than one domain provider, your argument about search is irrelevant. Just because Google and GoDaddy kicked them out, doesn't mean there aren't dozens more companies who would take them in.
  - notruthallowed 9y ago
    You completely missed the point that the person above you was making
- trav4225 9y ago
  Freedom of Speech is about freedom from tyranny of the state.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Sadly, we don't really have much to ensure freedom from tyranny of the corporation. Especially since the owners of the corporations and the government are essentially the same people.
    - trav4225 9y ago
      Indeed, cronyism is the problem, and much of the blame falls on the voters who fail to hold their officials to account.
      - jrs95 9y ago
        Or even more so, the vast majority of people who don't bother to vote at all. Its less like a representative democracy, and more like a "democracy" that represents our collective failure.
- flunhat 9y ago
  What a terribly un-nuanced and simplistic view of freedom of speech. I do not support the government punishing anyone for the views they espouse. I do, however, support the right of private companies to regulate their private platforms, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes laid out in law. This all-or-nothing view has never been true, and that's kind of the point. Freedom of speech requires social dialogue and consequence to have value - the ability of private entities to reject what they don't like is what makes the whole thing work.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Clubber 9y ago
  Bingo. The people who are cheering this censorship will be damning it when it happens to them. You either fight for freedom of speech, or you live by the pleasure of the tyrant. People cheering Google here, were you happy when Occupy Wall Street was run out of a public park, essentially censoring the movement? I certainly wasn't.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Occupy Wall Street isn't a relevant example to bring up because if it were a public park, then it would be referring to government censorship, whereas Google is private, so it's not relevant. However, Zucotti Park is private, not public.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      Censorship is still censorship, private censorship just isn't explicitly protected by the constitution. Do we want to support a world where corporations can freely censor ideas they don't like? Is that a good world to live in?
      - flunhat 9y ago
        Yes! That's the point of free speech - private entities can accept and reject ideas they like or dislike. The founders knew this, and they omitted any mention of private entities in the first amendment: The text of the first amendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It says nothing about private entities regulating private platforms and that's on purpose - free speech means nothing without the private means to accept or reject it. I feel that most of this confusion stems from people who live in different countries conflating their free speech laws with our own. In the United States, the government cannot regulate speech on the basis of its content, and this has always been the case. In the United States, private entities are free to regulate speech on private platforms, and this has also been the case since day 1 of the republic. This is nothing new for us Americans, and nothing particularly scary!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
convery 9y ago
Just because they don't have a legal right to something doesn't mean they have a human right to it.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Lucky for us morals do not equal laws.
lghh 9y ago
Freedom of Speech != freedom of speech.
aiyodev 9y ago
An organization becomes a government the moment it starts governing. There's a difference between an organization promoting its interests and an organization using its power to control and regulate. There's a difference between corporations like Godaddy and corporations like ICANN. As long as companies are making individual decisions and ICANN isn't involved, I think it's good that companies are making a moral stand. But when we start creating blacklists we become no better than the Nazis. It's a line we're getting dangerously close to and we don't want to cross it. I see no problem with a company like Google banning neo-Nazi websites. I see a huge problem if all the registrars conspire to create a blacklist or if ICANN starts censoring content.

cgag 9y ago

because we have to do this every time: Either the principle is important and you support it or you don't. If you actually believe in freedom of speech you don't get to celebrate censorship by corporate entities because the constitution didn't forbid it.

srinivgp 9y ago
Equivocation. "the principle" points at different principles for different people. There are differences in which types of organizations we might wish to forbid from interfering with speech. It is absolutely coherent to believe in a principle which celebrates censorship by corporate entities but not by governmental entities.
dragonwriter 9y ago
I believe that the right of private parties to be free from having speech compelled or repressed by the State is an important principal which means (except where it runs up against other important principals) permitting private censorship is important for the same reason as prohibiting public censorship.
tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
As much as this conversation gets played out, I still find it really interesting. On one hand, there is a difference between free speech as a legal term, and the free speech principles that undergird it. You can argue that Google should abide by free speech principles in allowing open discourse, regardless of the legal requirement to do so. On the other hand, a fundamental component of free speech (expression in this case) principles is the right to free association. Google therefore should exercise its own judgement in selecting those with whom they do associate, and resist external demands to associate with someone they would rather not. I believe that Google should feel free, both legally and socially, to act according to their conscience as a company. However, I believe that their conscience, as a massively powerful part of online communication, should be to remain neutral towards any legal communication that takes place on their platform. I think that's a more effective moral stance than the one they are taking.
jtmarmon 9y ago
i support corporations having the freedom to censor whoever they want on their own platforms
- myrandomcomment 9y ago
  There is nothing wrong per say with your position. This becomes an issue when a corporation that is a delivery medium for information censors based on popular sentiment. If you are a domain register you are selling a resource that is publicly owned and therefor you should not be able to ban things you do not like. If you are a hosting provider of course you do not have to host that content but we need to be careful that the registers are not permitted to censor domains they do not like. The the right to register a domain is a government function we delegated to ICANN there for a domain is covered as "freedom of speech". Can you imagine the Internet if it was around in the 50s & 60s and the domains that would be banned because racism was okay?
lightbyte 9y ago
These are completely different concepts. Government != buisness. I can't choose to ignore the US government if I live here and don't like what they do. These people do not have to use Google if they do not agree with their decision.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  The issue here is that Google holds a monopoly on search, which has an incredible effect on the internet. Given that the gateway to the internet for most people is Google, should freedom of speech protections extend to it?
  - gotrecruit 9y ago
    effect
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      Corrected, thank you
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    We're not talking about Search though, we're talking about domain name registrar services. You're conflating separate issues.
  - ggggtez 9y ago
    Considering there are more than one domain provider, your argument about search is irrelevant. Just because Google and GoDaddy kicked them out, doesn't mean there aren't dozens more companies who would take them in.
- notruthallowed 9y ago
  You completely missed the point that the person above you was making
trav4225 9y ago
Freedom of Speech is about freedom from tyranny of the state.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Sadly, we don't really have much to ensure freedom from tyranny of the corporation. Especially since the owners of the corporations and the government are essentially the same people.
  - trav4225 9y ago
    Indeed, cronyism is the problem, and much of the blame falls on the voters who fail to hold their officials to account.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      Or even more so, the vast majority of people who don't bother to vote at all. Its less like a representative democracy, and more like a "democracy" that represents our collective failure.
flunhat 9y ago
What a terribly un-nuanced and simplistic view of freedom of speech. I do not support the government punishing anyone for the views they espouse. I do, however, support the right of private companies to regulate their private platforms, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes laid out in law. This all-or-nothing view has never been true, and that's kind of the point. Freedom of speech requires social dialogue and consequence to have value - the ability of private entities to reject what they don't like is what makes the whole thing work.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Clubber 9y ago
Bingo. The people who are cheering this censorship will be damning it when it happens to them. You either fight for freedom of speech, or you live by the pleasure of the tyrant. People cheering Google here, were you happy when Occupy Wall Street was run out of a public park, essentially censoring the movement? I certainly wasn't.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Occupy Wall Street isn't a relevant example to bring up because if it were a public park, then it would be referring to government censorship, whereas Google is private, so it's not relevant. However, Zucotti Park is private, not public.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Censorship is still censorship, private censorship just isn't explicitly protected by the constitution. Do we want to support a world where corporations can freely censor ideas they don't like? Is that a good world to live in?
    - flunhat 9y ago
      Yes! That's the point of free speech - private entities can accept and reject ideas they like or dislike. The founders knew this, and they omitted any mention of private entities in the first amendment: The text of the first amendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It says nothing about private entities regulating private platforms and that's on purpose - free speech means nothing without the private means to accept or reject it. I feel that most of this confusion stems from people who live in different countries conflating their free speech laws with our own. In the United States, the government cannot regulate speech on the basis of its content, and this has always been the case. In the United States, private entities are free to regulate speech on private platforms, and this has also been the case since day 1 of the republic. This is nothing new for us Americans, and nothing particularly scary!
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

convery 9y ago

Just because they don't have a legal right to something doesn't mean they have a human right to it.

lightbyte 9y ago
Lucky for us morals do not equal laws.

lghh 9y ago

Freedom of Speech != freedom of speech.

aiyodev 9y ago

An organization becomes a government the moment it starts governing. There's a difference between an organization promoting its interests and an organization using its power to control and regulate. There's a difference between corporations like Godaddy and corporations like ICANN. As long as companies are making individual decisions and ICANN isn't involved, I think it's good that companies are making a moral stand. But when we start creating blacklists we become no better than the Nazis. It's a line we're getting dangerously close to and we don't want to cross it. I see no problem with a company like Google banning neo-Nazi websites. I see a huge problem if all the registrars conspire to create a blacklist or if ICANN starts censoring content.