5 ms·

Protected speech has nothing to do with private entities allowing you to use their platform to promote your message, it only curbs the government from prohibiti

Protected speech has nothing to do with private entities allowing you to use their platform to promote your message, it only curbs the government from prohibiting/punishing your speech. So for example you have every right to wear a jean jacket in court that says "fuck the draft" and the government can't prohibit or punish you for it (famous 1st amendment case) but a church can have you removed for wearing an article of clothing that says "fuck the church". See public vs private. Alternatively the government can prohibit and punish (I.e. Criminalize) burning of draft cards, because such speech interferes with the public function; therefore, is not protected (another famous 1st amendment court case). And high schools can prohibit students from wearing armbands as a silent protest (I.e. Not protected speech), because the government has more powers than normal when they are the wards of minors (again another famous 1st amendment case). And while hate speech may be protected, it can also be criminalized when used in conjunction with the commission of a crime and enhance the penalties of said crime. Still none of this is applicable to private business, and you would probably be glad to know if you are a business owner you Wouldn't have to permit hate speech in your establishment.

joelrunyon 9y ago
Here's where I addressed those concerns > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314
- aoeusnth1 9y ago
  These snotty replies are so insufferable. No, you did not address his reply in your original comment.
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    Hey man, I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm trying to explain what the "free speech" side of the argument is. I'm not saying his is invalid, or that he didn't bring up point, but I'm stating why there is concern from those concerned with free speech and "de-platforming." I don't think asking for a debate is "snotty" or "insufferable", but if I am, please let me know where I'm wrong :)
    - aoeusnth1 9y ago
      Linking to your own comment without adding anything implies the you don't need to dignify their comment with a response. That's not asking for debate, it's actively avoiding a debate while implying their commment has no substance, and they have limited reading comprehension. That comes across as snotty and insufferable.
      - joelrunyon 9y ago
        I think it's actually starting a good discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 You're welcome to join.
- will_brown 9y ago
  Unless I am mistaken that is the comment I replied to and it does not address the public vs private concern. Moreover, you are calling a private website a moral center for determining acceptable speech for exercising their right to censor their own website. To extend the idea, I noticed you have a personal website linked in your bio, are you under moral obligation to allow other people to post hate speech to your website or allow anyone to post anything to your website? Do you feel you have complete control over the content posted to your website or does that make you some sort of moral censor and dictator of acceptable speech? Edit: Your giving site may provide a better example, because presumably you feel you can pick a choose what charitable group(s) can join and receive funds through your platform, effectively limiting the speech of all the other programs you haven't allowed to join.
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    I understand where you're going, but the purpose of my site isn't to host multiple viewpoints from multiple people. The giving site is more of who we've partnered with - it's never been open to any & all charities. I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric (telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." The larger argument I was trying to get at in the other comment was that there seems to be a few companies that are aggregating power over "speech" online. At some point, they start to either look monopolistic (and using their base to prevent other players from growing - see fb v snapchat), or start to seem more similar to utility companies (which are regulated to some extent). Should your electric company be able to shut you off because you attended a rally? Should your phone company be able to terminate your service? Maybe, maybe not, but the utility analogy seems apt (to me) for this scenario.
    - will_brown 9y ago
      >I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric(telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." According to 1st amendment law, the remedy is to boycott the business, and truthfully it's the greatest tool people have to level the playing field, and it's seriously underleveraged especially in the internet age. However, the logic goes if you can't get the public to boycott a company, then your speech has basically failed in what's called the marketplace of ideas. So maybe while it's worth while to call attention to the power of these big companies and promote a boycott to keep them in check, you shouldn't be surprised when the boycott fails to gain momentum based them prohibiting hate speech, meaning find a clear cut example where they abused their power in a clearly controversial way where enough of the public will support the boycott to hurt the companies bottom line. As to your last paragraph, denial of service is not always protected or even speech for that matter. Another famous Supreme Court Case is Ollie's BBQ which prohibited African Americans from eating there, and that was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause. The commerce clause is kind of a running joke in law that gives the Federal Government the right to regulate everything on the basis of effecting interstate commerce, and while I of course agree with the result of the case, I despise the logic and use of the commerce clause. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung
jaredklewis 9y ago
I of course don't argue that Internet sites, like Twitter or the Google Play Store, are not private places. They are not public forums. But to me, the concerning point, is that the Internet is quickly becoming a place with no public forums. And I don't mean public forum in the legal sense (though that is also true), but in the sense of a place where everyone is welcome, and where people of all sides are actually present. I think public forums are an important part of our society because they force exposure to other members of society and create shared experiences. I think a major part of protests, like occupy wallstreeet, BLM or the Women's March is to get people's attention by being in a public space. You can get your ideas out into the area and even the country on television. If we are all living in our little bubbles, how can we have dialog and solve problems? Conservatives will have their little bubble, liberals will have their little bubble, and there will be no interaction. Twitter used to be a place where you could hear any kind of thought. You could hear one side of the story from the president of the US and the other side from al qaeda. Not anymore. Now, it may not seem like a big deal as the people being kicked off are bigots. But are you sure your opinion will always be in the majority? Take for example the recent Google Memo, which was quickly labeled sexist by most media outlets. Conversation on HN the past weeks indicates many on HN disagree with that label. It's bigots today, but it might be "sexists" tomorrow. So, yes I agree corporations have no duty to maintain a public forum. But if all businesses choose not to be public forums, do you think that is a good thing?
- will_brown 9y ago
  Again as a business owner, yes, I value my right to prohibit others from taking over with their message. I tend to use the church example a lot, because conceptualize small towns where the church maybe the epicenter for the majority of the community, and what it would mean to have to allow hate speech inside these places of worship (say a temple having to allow neo nazi's in to promote their message in the middle of a service). I don't think it's good to ignore the law in this area, because it's developed over a hundred years and has considered facts you and I would never come up with in a million years and the logic is well thought out of nothing else, even if I disagree with certain decisions on free speech. As to the internet it's the closest thing to what is called the marketplace of ideas from 1st amendment law, because even the government can shut you otherwise protected speech down in real life public forums based on safety, permitting, etc... moreover, anyone can get a personal website, just like the OP has listed in his bio, and it's available 24/7, and as I mentioned direct to OP, just like I have no rights to post hate speech or any speech on his website, there is no absolute right to post anything anywhere else either, even here on HN where many of my posts that made the front page have been killed/taken down even when they didn't violate HN terms.

joelrunyon 9y ago

Here's where I addressed those concerns > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314

aoeusnth1 9y ago
These snotty replies are so insufferable. No, you did not address his reply in your original comment.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  Hey man, I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm trying to explain what the "free speech" side of the argument is. I'm not saying his is invalid, or that he didn't bring up point, but I'm stating why there is concern from those concerned with free speech and "de-platforming." I don't think asking for a debate is "snotty" or "insufferable", but if I am, please let me know where I'm wrong :)
  - aoeusnth1 9y ago
    Linking to your own comment without adding anything implies the you don't need to dignify their comment with a response. That's not asking for debate, it's actively avoiding a debate while implying their commment has no substance, and they have limited reading comprehension. That comes across as snotty and insufferable.
    - joelrunyon 9y ago
      I think it's actually starting a good discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 You're welcome to join.
will_brown 9y ago
Unless I am mistaken that is the comment I replied to and it does not address the public vs private concern. Moreover, you are calling a private website a moral center for determining acceptable speech for exercising their right to censor their own website. To extend the idea, I noticed you have a personal website linked in your bio, are you under moral obligation to allow other people to post hate speech to your website or allow anyone to post anything to your website? Do you feel you have complete control over the content posted to your website or does that make you some sort of moral censor and dictator of acceptable speech? Edit: Your giving site may provide a better example, because presumably you feel you can pick a choose what charitable group(s) can join and receive funds through your platform, effectively limiting the speech of all the other programs you haven't allowed to join.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  I understand where you're going, but the purpose of my site isn't to host multiple viewpoints from multiple people. The giving site is more of who we've partnered with - it's never been open to any & all charities. I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric (telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." The larger argument I was trying to get at in the other comment was that there seems to be a few companies that are aggregating power over "speech" online. At some point, they start to either look monopolistic (and using their base to prevent other players from growing - see fb v snapchat), or start to seem more similar to utility companies (which are regulated to some extent). Should your electric company be able to shut you off because you attended a rally? Should your phone company be able to terminate your service? Maybe, maybe not, but the utility analogy seems apt (to me) for this scenario.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    >I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric(telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." According to 1st amendment law, the remedy is to boycott the business, and truthfully it's the greatest tool people have to level the playing field, and it's seriously underleveraged especially in the internet age. However, the logic goes if you can't get the public to boycott a company, then your speech has basically failed in what's called the marketplace of ideas. So maybe while it's worth while to call attention to the power of these big companies and promote a boycott to keep them in check, you shouldn't be surprised when the boycott fails to gain momentum based them prohibiting hate speech, meaning find a clear cut example where they abused their power in a clearly controversial way where enough of the public will support the boycott to hurt the companies bottom line. As to your last paragraph, denial of service is not always protected or even speech for that matter. Another famous Supreme Court Case is Ollie's BBQ which prohibited African Americans from eating there, and that was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause. The commerce clause is kind of a running joke in law that gives the Federal Government the right to regulate everything on the basis of effecting interstate commerce, and while I of course agree with the result of the case, I despise the logic and use of the commerce clause. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

jaredklewis 9y ago

I of course don't argue that Internet sites, like Twitter or the Google Play Store, are not private places. They are not public forums. But to me, the concerning point, is that the Internet is quickly becoming a place with no public forums. And I don't mean public forum in the legal sense (though that is also true), but in the sense of a place where everyone is welcome, and where people of all sides are actually present. I think public forums are an important part of our society because they force exposure to other members of society and create shared experiences. I think a major part of protests, like occupy wallstreeet, BLM or the Women's March is to get people's attention by being in a public space. You can get your ideas out into the area and even the country on television. If we are all living in our little bubbles, how can we have dialog and solve problems? Conservatives will have their little bubble, liberals will have their little bubble, and there will be no interaction. Twitter used to be a place where you could hear any kind of thought. You could hear one side of the story from the president of the US and the other side from al qaeda. Not anymore. Now, it may not seem like a big deal as the people being kicked off are bigots. But are you sure your opinion will always be in the majority? Take for example the recent Google Memo, which was quickly labeled sexist by most media outlets. Conversation on HN the past weeks indicates many on HN disagree with that label. It's bigots today, but it might be "sexists" tomorrow. So, yes I agree corporations have no duty to maintain a public forum. But if all businesses choose not to be public forums, do you think that is a good thing?

will_brown 9y ago
Again as a business owner, yes, I value my right to prohibit others from taking over with their message. I tend to use the church example a lot, because conceptualize small towns where the church maybe the epicenter for the majority of the community, and what it would mean to have to allow hate speech inside these places of worship (say a temple having to allow neo nazi's in to promote their message in the middle of a service). I don't think it's good to ignore the law in this area, because it's developed over a hundred years and has considered facts you and I would never come up with in a million years and the logic is well thought out of nothing else, even if I disagree with certain decisions on free speech. As to the internet it's the closest thing to what is called the marketplace of ideas from 1st amendment law, because even the government can shut you otherwise protected speech down in real life public forums based on safety, permitting, etc... moreover, anyone can get a personal website, just like the OP has listed in his bio, and it's available 24/7, and as I mentioned direct to OP, just like I have no rights to post hate speech or any speech on his website, there is no absolute right to post anything anywhere else either, even here on HN where many of my posts that made the front page have been killed/taken down even when they didn't violate HN terms.