5 ms·

>But few really oppose the basic predicate of these removals: that private companies can and should be arbiters of permissible speech on their platforms. I am

>But few really oppose the basic predicate of these removals: that private companies can and should be arbiters of permissible speech on their platforms. I am proud to count myself among those few. Social media is the modern public square and must be treated as such.

onion2k 9y ago
You're interpreting the first amendment as "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech on the speakers chosen platform." I rather like the idea that the New Yorker rejecting my work could be considered a violation of my rights.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  Don't confuse the ideal of free speech, with its legal implementation in the 1st Amendment.
  - ebola1717 9y ago
    But free speech as an ideal is made to protect people from the unique threat posed by state censorship. This may have applications to platforms with influence as widespread as Google or Facebook, but it certainly doesn't apply to most other private entities. Absent such an overwhelming imbalance in power, what most people consider "censorship" is more often than not just counter-speech and holding people accountable for their words and actions.
    - Khaine 9y ago
      When the constitution was drafted, there were no companies like facebook or google. The state was the largest and most powerful entity. The first amendment is a product of its times, if it was drafted today it would be different to reflect the massive power that corporations hold over people.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  Why is this canard such a common response in discussions like these? The only explanation I've come up with so far is that the people saying stuff like this are profoundly stupid, and I really hate it when my only explanation of a POV is that facile and self-serving. I don't mean to pick on you in particular but I'm hoping you can explain this to me and try to steelman this common refrain. Free speech as a concept (or a spectrum) exists independently of its codification in our Constitution. It's not something the founders accidentally wrote down and now we're stuck with it: they did it for a reason that some people (myself and the parent comment included) find compelling in contexts other than simply "when the Constitution forces us to". It's fine to disagree with its relevance to specific contexts, but what on earth compels you to think that "The Constitution doesn't force us to!" is a remotely relevant response to "I think free speech is a good idea in this context"?
  - onion2k 9y ago
    Free speech as a concept (or a spectrum) exists independently of its codification in our Constitution. Free speech exists as a concept, but protected free speech doesn't. You can't have protected free speech without the laws that protect it. The point I made slightly flippantly is about the extent of the protection. Most people interpret the law as protecting the right to speak, not the right to speak on a specific platform. As with all things this is best explained with an XKCD reference: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - didgeoridoo 9y ago
      Laws don't define right and wrong. If we didn't have laws against murder, would murder not still be wrong? Just because the government is prevented from creating laws that infringe on free speech, that doesn't mean that individual infringement on free speech is morally permissible.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        The problem is you are casting individual exercise of free speech by delining to amplify speech they don't approve of as “infringement on free speech”. Free speech certainly includes the right to try to convince people to amplify your speech. It generally does not include an entitlement to have them do it for you without you having to convince them.
- tomjen3 9y ago
  No he is not interpretation any admentment. He is saying that he has political believes (which I happen to share) that is not yet inscribed in the constitution, but that good people should act as if they were. Free speech excist as a concept outside the constitution and did not come into existence magically from nothing when the admentement was ratified.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
microwavecamera 9y ago
But there's an important issue we're over looking. Should a social media platform/company be required to carry content that promotes illegal activities? Should Twitter be required to allow pedophiles to promote their cause? And social media is not a public institution. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are private companies owned by individuals. They're free to do what they want with their company and your free to go start your own site or company. It's property rights. You're free to put a sign promoting your ideals in your yard but I'm not required to allow you to put it in my yard.

onion2k 9y ago

You're interpreting the first amendment as "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech on the speakers chosen platform." I rather like the idea that the New Yorker rejecting my work could be considered a violation of my rights.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
Don't confuse the ideal of free speech, with its legal implementation in the 1st Amendment.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  But free speech as an ideal is made to protect people from the unique threat posed by state censorship. This may have applications to platforms with influence as widespread as Google or Facebook, but it certainly doesn't apply to most other private entities. Absent such an overwhelming imbalance in power, what most people consider "censorship" is more often than not just counter-speech and holding people accountable for their words and actions.
  - Khaine 9y ago
    When the constitution was drafted, there were no companies like facebook or google. The state was the largest and most powerful entity. The first amendment is a product of its times, if it was drafted today it would be different to reflect the massive power that corporations hold over people.
wutbrodo 9y ago
Why is this canard such a common response in discussions like these? The only explanation I've come up with so far is that the people saying stuff like this are profoundly stupid, and I really hate it when my only explanation of a POV is that facile and self-serving. I don't mean to pick on you in particular but I'm hoping you can explain this to me and try to steelman this common refrain. Free speech as a concept (or a spectrum) exists independently of its codification in our Constitution. It's not something the founders accidentally wrote down and now we're stuck with it: they did it for a reason that some people (myself and the parent comment included) find compelling in contexts other than simply "when the Constitution forces us to". It's fine to disagree with its relevance to specific contexts, but what on earth compels you to think that "The Constitution doesn't force us to!" is a remotely relevant response to "I think free speech is a good idea in this context"?
- onion2k 9y ago
  Free speech as a concept (or a spectrum) exists independently of its codification in our Constitution. Free speech exists as a concept, but protected free speech doesn't. You can't have protected free speech without the laws that protect it. The point I made slightly flippantly is about the extent of the protection. Most people interpret the law as protecting the right to speak, not the right to speak on a specific platform. As with all things this is best explained with an XKCD reference: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    Laws don't define right and wrong. If we didn't have laws against murder, would murder not still be wrong? Just because the government is prevented from creating laws that infringe on free speech, that doesn't mean that individual infringement on free speech is morally permissible.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      The problem is you are casting individual exercise of free speech by delining to amplify speech they don't approve of as “infringement on free speech”. Free speech certainly includes the right to try to convince people to amplify your speech. It generally does not include an entitlement to have them do it for you without you having to convince them.
tomjen3 9y ago
No he is not interpretation any admentment. He is saying that he has political believes (which I happen to share) that is not yet inscribed in the constitution, but that good people should act as if they were. Free speech excist as a concept outside the constitution and did not come into existence magically from nothing when the admentement was ratified.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

microwavecamera 9y ago

But there's an important issue we're over looking. Should a social media platform/company be required to carry content that promotes illegal activities? Should Twitter be required to allow pedophiles to promote their cause? And social media is not a public institution. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are private companies owned by individuals. They're free to do what they want with their company and your free to go start your own site or company. It's property rights. You're free to put a sign promoting your ideals in your yard but I'm not required to allow you to put it in my yard.