4 ms·

A private corporation deciding not to host /actually fascist/ content because they're getting bad press for it has nothing to do with free speech. And criticizi

A private corporation deciding not to host /actually fascist/ content because they're getting bad press for it has nothing to do with free speech. And criticizing another corporation for hosting, again, /actually fascist/ content is perfectly within the scope of the 1st amendment. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357 https://xkcd.com/1357

Houshalter 9y ago
Can you please point me to the comment where someone claimed it violated the first amendment? I can't find it.
blfr 9y ago
Yes, yes it does have a lot to do with free speech. It strikes to the heart of the issue. Free speech isn't just a paragraph in the American Constitution that appeared there out of nowhere. It's a larger cultural norm that allows you to share your ideas and, much more importantly, allows you to hear other people's ideas without censorship. Whether censorship comes from the government, university, or some megacorp is completely irrelevant to whether it is an infringement on free speech.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  > Free speech isn't just a paragraph in the American Constitution that appeared there out of nowhere. It's a larger cultural norm that allows you to share your ideas and, much more importantly, allows you to hear other people's ideas without censorship. Right. > Whether censorship comes from the government, university, or some megacorp is completely irrelevant to whether it is an infringement on free speech. Wrong, unless you mean a university or corporation literally physically censoring you from communicating something. See sib response by dragonwriter. If a university disinvites a speaker or a corporation stops hosting someone customer's website, nobody's right to free speech was infringed upon. Sure, you may accuse them of acting against the spirit of the value of free speech, but that's their prerogative and they are in fact simultaneously exercising their own right to free speech by choosing not to host/amplify another's speech they find repugnant.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    Most censorship in China is done by the private sector. It doesn't come direct from the government. Instead, the government makes it clear that various types of speech are deemed unacceptable, but remains vague about exactly what. For example the PRC likes to crack down on "rumours". The consequence is that the private sector is a huge and critical part of how China censors information. Actual direct government censorship is relatively limited: it's all based on distributing vague principles to the private sector combined, with punishments for failure to comply. The result is people interpreting the principles in the most aggressive way possible. In the west, governments have egged on progressive agendas and passed laws that punish various kinds of speech (e.g. "hate speech"). But most of the censorship is done by the private sector, who are trying to interpret vague principles in ways that'll avoid them being targeted for punishment. The fact that in the west the media and various ideological groupings have as much to do with it as a government agenda doesn't change the fact that most of the ensuring censorship is still run and managed by the private sector.
    - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
      Ok, but were an American to find themselves legally censored by another American individual or corporation, they could take their business elsewhere/start their own newspaper or webhost/become a soapbox preacher, whatever. None of those are options in the Chinese case.
      - peoplewindow 9y ago
        That's true as long as there are plenty of providers in the market and the barriers to entry are low, so you can get specialist "free speech" firms. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. If Google and Bing both decide to delist your website because they think it's "hateful" or some other reason you're out of luck. There are only two major English-language search engines. If your Wordpress hosting provider doesn't want you, well, that's inconvenient but not the end of the world. One problem with encouraging a culture of "free speech doesn't matter if you're a company" is that the type of speech that requires the most defence is the most unpopular kind, which means you can end up with all the offensive or challenging material lumped under one or two providers ... who are then vulnerable to other forms of attack by people who wish to crush speech they disagree with. It's really a lot more robust if everyone agrees that "I disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".
dragonwriter 9y ago
Free speech is precisely the norm of private parties being permitted to choose what speech they will make, or allow to be amplified, with their resources. Private censorship of what is transmitted by the censors' own resources is not only not an infringement of free speech, it is central to the essence of the concept of free speech. Likewise, criticism of others' speech and advocacy against others amplifying or supporting it is also a central part of the idea of free speech.

Houshalter 9y ago

Can you please point me to the comment where someone claimed it violated the first amendment? I can't find it.

blfr 9y ago

Yes, yes it does have a lot to do with free speech. It strikes to the heart of the issue. Free speech isn't just a paragraph in the American Constitution that appeared there out of nowhere. It's a larger cultural norm that allows you to share your ideas and, much more importantly, allows you to hear other people's ideas without censorship. Whether censorship comes from the government, university, or some megacorp is completely irrelevant to whether it is an infringement on free speech.

MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
> Free speech isn't just a paragraph in the American Constitution that appeared there out of nowhere. It's a larger cultural norm that allows you to share your ideas and, much more importantly, allows you to hear other people's ideas without censorship. Right. > Whether censorship comes from the government, university, or some megacorp is completely irrelevant to whether it is an infringement on free speech. Wrong, unless you mean a university or corporation literally physically censoring you from communicating something. See sib response by dragonwriter. If a university disinvites a speaker or a corporation stops hosting someone customer's website, nobody's right to free speech was infringed upon. Sure, you may accuse them of acting against the spirit of the value of free speech, but that's their prerogative and they are in fact simultaneously exercising their own right to free speech by choosing not to host/amplify another's speech they find repugnant.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Most censorship in China is done by the private sector. It doesn't come direct from the government. Instead, the government makes it clear that various types of speech are deemed unacceptable, but remains vague about exactly what. For example the PRC likes to crack down on "rumours". The consequence is that the private sector is a huge and critical part of how China censors information. Actual direct government censorship is relatively limited: it's all based on distributing vague principles to the private sector combined, with punishments for failure to comply. The result is people interpreting the principles in the most aggressive way possible. In the west, governments have egged on progressive agendas and passed laws that punish various kinds of speech (e.g. "hate speech"). But most of the censorship is done by the private sector, who are trying to interpret vague principles in ways that'll avoid them being targeted for punishment. The fact that in the west the media and various ideological groupings have as much to do with it as a government agenda doesn't change the fact that most of the ensuring censorship is still run and managed by the private sector.
  - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    Ok, but were an American to find themselves legally censored by another American individual or corporation, they could take their business elsewhere/start their own newspaper or webhost/become a soapbox preacher, whatever. None of those are options in the Chinese case.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      That's true as long as there are plenty of providers in the market and the barriers to entry are low, so you can get specialist "free speech" firms. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. If Google and Bing both decide to delist your website because they think it's "hateful" or some other reason you're out of luck. There are only two major English-language search engines. If your Wordpress hosting provider doesn't want you, well, that's inconvenient but not the end of the world. One problem with encouraging a culture of "free speech doesn't matter if you're a company" is that the type of speech that requires the most defence is the most unpopular kind, which means you can end up with all the offensive or challenging material lumped under one or two providers ... who are then vulnerable to other forms of attack by people who wish to crush speech they disagree with. It's really a lot more robust if everyone agrees that "I disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

dragonwriter 9y ago

Free speech is precisely the norm of private parties being permitted to choose what speech they will make, or allow to be amplified, with their resources. Private censorship of what is transmitted by the censors' own resources is not only not an infringement of free speech, it is central to the essence of the concept of free speech. Likewise, criticism of others' speech and advocacy against others amplifying or supporting it is also a central part of the idea of free speech.