10 ms·

First Amendment in Peril?

44 points by martin1975 9y ago

bobjordan 9y ago
It may not be long before these major firms are regulated like a public utility. I read that Steve Bannon had been working on that suggestion, but since he's out now, hard to say how much traction it actually had in the White House.
- valuearb 9y ago
  It's a great example of how public regulation is an insidious form of censorship. Public regulation is used to force major firms to toe the line of the political party in power, if it's Steve Bannon's crew you ain't going to like the result. We don't need public regulation of social media or app stores because we all have the opportunity to get our information and apps from other sources.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rdlecler1 9y ago
The constitution serves as the U.S.'s first principles of a moral society. No matter how good the intentions, once we start to let other moral imperatives supersede the moral imperitives set forth in the constitution we fundementally change the fabric of the U.S. and frankly it puts the entire experiment in peril.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  So where was the peril for the first century, with slavery and blacks not guaranteed the rights stated in the document? Or the fifty years after where women couldn't vote? The imprisonment and killing of leftists during the red scares and other labor movements? The imprisonment of a hundred thousand innocent civilians during WWII? The experiment has survived two hundred years of bigotry, if it can't handle private companies choosing not to help racists it isn't worth continuing.
  - gremlinsinc 9y ago
    I love this comment...that and I think op hasn't read the constitution at all: 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. Where does it state that companies must allow free speech on their business property, or servers? It doesn't, it applies to GOVERNMENT entities and public lands/property. If a Nazi steps foot on my PRIVATE property I can call the cops and charge with trespassing. Once they're on my property their freedom of Speech goes out the window. Same w/ google/fb et. al. They're more than free to start their own google/fb/apple competitors and gain market share...but good luck with that.
    - throwaway0255 9y ago
      In a hypothetical future, if Facebook were able to exploit its network effect to the point of having near-100% market share on all private communications, would you still defend their right under the constitution to police all private speech in America at their sole discretion? That's the question that's being asked. And you can say people can vote with their feet, but what about when "voting with your feet" means permanently and significantly extricating yourself from your family and friends? > They're more than free to start their own google/fb/apple competitors and gain market share...but good luck with that. That's exactly the point. Through network effects, these companies have achieved monopolistic market positions on how American citizens communicate with each other. If we're going by spirit of the law (as we often do with the law out of necessity, especially as technology advances), then clearly the spirit of the first amendment did not intend to nullify itself in a hypothetical future where all communications were privately owned by a handful of corporations. If the telecoms all decided to put in speech recognition software that automatically terminated phone calls when it detected negative sentiment toward a particular political group or initiative, would you defend that? What if UPS and FedEx decided to do the same to letters, and return them all to sender or burn them? They have a right to burn letters that criticize their favored candidate, because you agreed to it in the EULA. Don't agree to the EULA? You don't get to receive Amazon packages anymore. Would you defend that?
kstrauser 9y ago
No. No one's telling Nazis they can't put their venom on the Internet - they're just disinclined to help them. Joe Nazi has the right to say stupid things, but what about Google and Apple's right not to host their content? And what if hosting that content reduces others' freedom of speech by making them afraid to speak? Frankly, the slippery slope argument doesn't carry much weight with me here. Companies are choosing not to help literal swastika-wearing Nazis. No one's refusing to carry other non-extremist content, whether garden variety conservative pro-life or anti-gay-marriage messages, or liberal BLM or Antifa pages. I'm a huge free speech supporter. I donate to EFF and the ACLU. And yet, I'm perfectly OK telling Nazis to go find their own Internet and please stay off mine. (And to be clear, I don't mean "Nazi as in someone whose opinions I don't like", but "Nazi as in throwing a sieg heil salute and calling themselves Nazis".)
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  You are allowing speech on your internet to be arbitrated by a bunch of big corporations. There is no reason to think that's going to go well in the long run. There are about a thousand special interests each with their own agenda that want something blocked. There is already huge pressure to remove ISIS content. It puts these companies in an untenable situation if they take down the nazi content, but leave up ISIS recruiting and terror bombing videos. We've already seen the Syria War crime video fiasco, so I think there is slippery slope already happening.
  - kstrauser 9y ago
    > You are allowing speech on your internet to be arbitrated by a bunch of big corporations. I disagree. First, Apple and Google are refusing to host a particular app in their stores. But on the subject of hosting, there many thousands of web hosts, many in places that probably wouldn't care about serving such content. The oppressed literal Nazis can pick any one of those, but I think it's ludicrous to expect that any particular provider should be expected to serve it. Even if they're big and popular. Maybe especially then. Suppose Google were an Israeli company. I'd like to think we could all agree it would be unreasonable to call on them to demand they help disseminate literal Nazi content. Google and Apple aren't Israeli, but I don't think that makes it OK to insist they go along with it. And ultimately neither company is saying that you can't go find that information on your own, even using the browsers they provide. They're just saying they're not going to cooperate to make it easier and more convenient. I can't think that's a bad thing.
passwordreset 9y ago
I think that the author had a good point, that while we're worried about "hate speech", the real first amendment is being attacked in many other ways. That right wing terrorists want to take away the freedom of speech for Jews immigrants, and protestors. That companies now want to remove the free speech rights for their own customers. That politicians want to get rid of any speech that maligns them. I agree wholeheartedly with the author when said that these are the real threats to the first amendment. "Hate speech" isn't the issue. The issue is the scumbags spouting the hate.
toast0 9y ago
I'm a strong proponent of free speech, including abhorrent speech, but capricious removal from the platform stores doesn't offend me. On Android, it's not hard to install apks from websites. On iPhone, it's a lot harder, but iPhone is a minority of the market, and Apple has made a point of curating their store to some degree, I simply don't expect them to accept everything and they are inconsistent, too; but even old iPhones have enough economic value to trade for an Android, if the owner decides they don't like the aesthetic choices Apple has made with their app catalog. This feels significantly different than refusing to register a domain, or even refusing to host objectionable content. As a user, I expect app stores to perform some sort of judgement about apps, and not simply allow any app that is not unlawful.
yedava 9y ago
This is pure hyperbole. Mobile phones have these things called browsers where users can visit websites. Is having an app convenient? Yes, definitely. But in this case the lack of an app does not threaten the First Amendment.
- eeks 9y ago
  This is a dangerous argument. The government censors this or that site. But wait, you have a VPN? Then your rights are respected. Oh, the government forbids VPN. But wait, you have Tor? Then you rights are respected. Making one particular medium more difficult to access than other comparable medium is one kind of censorship and threatens the first amendment.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    The first amendment does not allow the government to censor a site, so your post makes zero sense.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
The first amendment (in case you haven't even read it!) : 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. Nowhere in there does it say.. and by the way ALL corporations must ALSO allow freedom of speech. Their servers, their rules. The internet is about freedom and it goes both way -- you're free to say what you want and the site you post it to is free to remove that content if they deem it hurtful to others.
- mike503 9y ago
  YES. This. I have tried to remind people that the amendment is only about that. Corporations and anyone can do anything they want to (and risk the blowback)
  - bencollier49 9y ago
    That's fine, but when most of civil society moves over to closed corporate eletronic platforms, you have to ask whether those platforms should have analogous rules, and if not, why not.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      That's a personal choice. If you don't like the restrictions of the most popular platforms, you can choose a different one. Freedom of speech can never be taken away by corporations. Open source software gives you the power to create your own platforms if none of the commercial ones meet your requirements.
    - gremlinsinc 9y ago
      These 'closed' entities like facebook...you realize their only power is the people... if people get fed up they can just leave... All the Nazi's are free to go leave start their own networks, and leave the rest of us in peace. Freedom of speech also doesn't mean we need to hear you rant on and on about 'white culture'. So if the majority of us complain, and FB/Google/Apple listen to the majority (i.e. democractically decide) that you're out -- then goodbye you've lost in the marketplace of ideas. I'm white, a mutt from Irish, German, and English stock, but white culture doesn't mean shit to me...now Irish, German, English culture--that actually means something. I'm sure there's probably some hispanic/indian could even be some african american.. I think a lot of racists would be surprised if they ever would ante up for a DNA test.
mercer 9y ago
I wish we'd disconnect the discussion about declining Nazis as customers from the discussion about whether certain platforms/products have become important or monopolistic enough that they should be regulated as a 'public' platform where freedom of speech is upheld. The former issue is almost impossible to discuss rationally at this point (which is understandable), whereas the latter strikes me as ultimately more important but also more complicated. Discussing them together makes everything more difficult...
- tw04 9y ago
  So which newspaper is forced to run stories on topics they don't like? I don't get how you could ever claim a private business should be forced to publish content they disagree with simply because they're a platform lots of people gravitate towards. You want to talk about erosion of rights? What next, scientific journals have to post bible passages alongside peer reviewed papers as a "counter-point"?
  - tinalumfoil 9y ago
    Should the delivery provider of a newspaper be allowed to hold the days newspapers hostage because there's and article he doesn't like?
  - mercer 9y ago
    I agree with you. I don't think a private business should be forced to publish content they disagree with simply because they're a platform lots of people gravitate towards. I'm not sure why you choose to 1) be antagonistic/hostile for no good reason, and 2) misinterpret my words, or worse, choose to put words in my mouth so you can go and be outraged about it. It does seem like a good illustration of the point I was trying to make, though.
alkonaut 9y ago
There is never an absolute and total freedom of speech. That is, there is always speech of the kind than a society cannot and must not tolerate. Either a country accepts this within its legal framework and has e.g hate speech laws (e.g Germany) or it doesn't (e.g US), but in the latter case as being "outside" the law - and it must be met with force outside the law. There are benefits and drawbacks to both models (which is why both exist). But at the end of the day there is little practical difference between "if you carry a nazi flag you'll go to jail" and "if you carry a nazi flag you'll be punched in the face". In both cases open society is judging and delivering the sentence. The notion that all speech must be accepted and never met with violent protest is both unrealistic and dangerous. So to get back on topic: 1st amendment protects the open society but doesn't function without an open society. Violent protestors at rallies and tech companies gagging fascists is what it needs, and not a problem.
- renlo 9y ago
  The thought that words or ideas should be met with violence concerns me. You're not going to end hate speech by attacking people, however wrong they may be. Google and Apple don't even need to adhere to the first amendment so I'm not sure why you conflated this with "hate speech should be met with violence", which would only cause more fighting and more violence (I doubt a Nazi would take a punch to the face without trying to throw his own punches, resulting in straight out combat between people with very strong notions of 'us' and 'them')
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    What I meant was that everyone who values tolerance should defend it with the means they have available. A web host should deny hosting, an employer denies employment and a citizen denies use of public space for speaking hate and intolerance. What is necessary to deny this (whether it's enough to bring a vuvuzela) will vary. Punching nazis won't convert them, so it's probably counter productive - but disturb their rally and there is a risk you'll be attacked. No need to throw the first punch, ever.
    - 9y ago
Toboe 9y ago
> Perhaps it is time that spectrum licenses to mobile-phone companies be conditioned on their recipients providing freedoms for customers to use the apps of their choice. Do google and apple have any spectrum licenses? (ignoring that fact that you can install apps on android without needing googles consent)
PeachPlum 9y ago
This was the plan Hillary Clinton told the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in 2011 - https://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/state-department-meeting-with-oic-to-discuss-free-speech-restrictions https://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/state-department-meeting-... she had for restricting free speech in the US: > We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.
- kstrauser 9y ago
  What part of "freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy" restricts free speech?
  - PeachPlum 9y ago
    Did you miss "using old fashioned peer pressure and shaming"? The SoS telling foreigners how she will attack the free speech of the citizens she is supposed to representing.
chrisco255 9y ago
If this doesn't make the case to gradually shift to decentralized Blockchain based tooling for social networking, I don't know what does.
dzaragozar 9y ago
Mandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
throwaway2220 9y ago
https://www.amren.com/commentary/2017/08/unite-the-right-violence-trump-alt-right-white-america/ https://www.amren.com/commentary/2017/08/unite-the-right-vio... > Compare that to the response after a Muslim intentionally murders innocent people going about their daily routine. “We have to understand the conditions that lead these young men to do this.” “They lack job opportunities.” “This has nothing to do with Islam.” “Our military interventions are to blame.” > Similarly, after false reports that a police officer has shot the proverbial “unarmed black man” and violent riots ensue, we are told that socio-economic or educational inequities are the reason. Most everyone sees through this, but the show must go on. > A consistent theme becomes obvious–when non-whites commit crimes and even murder, the moral, enlightened thing to do is find out what bad thing white people did that caused their behavior. But when white people take to the streets as white people, unmitigated revulsion must be exhibited for all to see. ... > But what keeps bubbling to the surface and ruining this fantasy is human nature. All people desire to live in communities and countries that reflect their identities, cultures, and histories. That feeling—not particular political or economic systems—is foundational. And so, like trying to keep two opposing magnets in close contact, non-stop effort has to be made in multiracial societies to keep natural forces of repulsion from winning out. > But the grand diversity experiment in America is not just about seeing whether different racial and cultural groups can successfully coexist in the same country (history suggests they can’t); it is about denigrating white people and denying them a positive racial identity. The scope of this undertaking is striking–academia, media, entertainment, and politics are all saturated with various forms of white guilt and white shaming. > The resentments engendered by this psychological abuse are made worse when they’re dismissed as paranoia, or when dissenters are diagnosed as being “scared of people who don’t look like them” or “filled with hate.” > No people will tolerate this for long, and what we are seeing now is the inevitable blowback to decades of a one-sided culture war on white people.
klondike_ 9y ago
The argument here isn't really whether Google has the right to censor free speech or not. It clearly does, the First Amendment only applies to the government. The real issue here is how much control two companies have over nearly all of the country's computing. These devices are locked down to the point where Apple or Google choose what you can and can't do with your device, and give the user few ways around it (At least Android allows sideloading apps). Free computing will soon be dead. The internet isn't as bad, but is headed in the same direction. Information is being increasingly consolidated into CDNs. While you can still host a server yourself, I fear that soon that will be dis-incentivized: Just look at Google AMP. Not to mention the shaky status of Net Neutrality at the moment. None of this is illegal of course, private companies are free to do what they wish. However, the way things are heading is depressing.
- emmelaich 9y ago
  > The argument here isn't really whether Google has the right to censor free speech or not. It clearly does, the First Amendment only applies to the government. Mostly true but not completely true. Look up penumbral constitutional rights. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law) 2. https://journalism.ku.edu/cherry-picked-professor-studies-how-first-amendment-applies-private-companies-regulate-online-speech https://journalism.ku.edu/cherry-picked-professor-studies-ho...
scarface74 9y ago
How is not allowing an app on either App Store preventing people from exercising their free speech? Why do you need an app at all? They could easily just build a website and call it day.

44 points by martin1975 9y ago

It may not be long before these major firms are regulated like a public utility. I read that Steve Bannon had been working on that suggestion, but since he's out now, hard to say how much traction it actually had in the White House.

valuearb 9y ago
It's a great example of how public regulation is an insidious form of censorship. Public regulation is used to force major firms to toe the line of the political party in power, if it's Steve Bannon's crew you ain't going to like the result. We don't need public regulation of social media or app stores because we all have the opportunity to get our information and apps from other sources.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rdlecler1 9y ago

The constitution serves as the U.S.'s first principles of a moral society. No matter how good the intentions, once we start to let other moral imperatives supersede the moral imperitives set forth in the constitution we fundementally change the fabric of the U.S. and frankly it puts the entire experiment in peril.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
So where was the peril for the first century, with slavery and blacks not guaranteed the rights stated in the document? Or the fifty years after where women couldn't vote? The imprisonment and killing of leftists during the red scares and other labor movements? The imprisonment of a hundred thousand innocent civilians during WWII? The experiment has survived two hundred years of bigotry, if it can't handle private companies choosing not to help racists it isn't worth continuing.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  I love this comment...that and I think op hasn't read the constitution at all: 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. Where does it state that companies must allow free speech on their business property, or servers? It doesn't, it applies to GOVERNMENT entities and public lands/property. If a Nazi steps foot on my PRIVATE property I can call the cops and charge with trespassing. Once they're on my property their freedom of Speech goes out the window. Same w/ google/fb et. al. They're more than free to start their own google/fb/apple competitors and gain market share...but good luck with that.
  - throwaway0255 9y ago
    In a hypothetical future, if Facebook were able to exploit its network effect to the point of having near-100% market share on all private communications, would you still defend their right under the constitution to police all private speech in America at their sole discretion? That's the question that's being asked. And you can say people can vote with their feet, but what about when "voting with your feet" means permanently and significantly extricating yourself from your family and friends? > They're more than free to start their own google/fb/apple competitors and gain market share...but good luck with that. That's exactly the point. Through network effects, these companies have achieved monopolistic market positions on how American citizens communicate with each other. If we're going by spirit of the law (as we often do with the law out of necessity, especially as technology advances), then clearly the spirit of the first amendment did not intend to nullify itself in a hypothetical future where all communications were privately owned by a handful of corporations. If the telecoms all decided to put in speech recognition software that automatically terminated phone calls when it detected negative sentiment toward a particular political group or initiative, would you defend that? What if UPS and FedEx decided to do the same to letters, and return them all to sender or burn them? They have a right to burn letters that criticize their favored candidate, because you agreed to it in the EULA. Don't agree to the EULA? You don't get to receive Amazon packages anymore. Would you defend that?

kstrauser 9y ago

No. No one's telling Nazis they can't put their venom on the Internet - they're just disinclined to help them. Joe Nazi has the right to say stupid things, but what about Google and Apple's right not to host their content? And what if hosting that content reduces others' freedom of speech by making them afraid to speak? Frankly, the slippery slope argument doesn't carry much weight with me here. Companies are choosing not to help literal swastika-wearing Nazis. No one's refusing to carry other non-extremist content, whether garden variety conservative pro-life or anti-gay-marriage messages, or liberal BLM or Antifa pages. I'm a huge free speech supporter. I donate to EFF and the ACLU. And yet, I'm perfectly OK telling Nazis to go find their own Internet and please stay off mine. (And to be clear, I don't mean "Nazi as in someone whose opinions I don't like", but "Nazi as in throwing a sieg heil salute and calling themselves Nazis".)

WillPostForFood 9y ago
You are allowing speech on your internet to be arbitrated by a bunch of big corporations. There is no reason to think that's going to go well in the long run. There are about a thousand special interests each with their own agenda that want something blocked. There is already huge pressure to remove ISIS content. It puts these companies in an untenable situation if they take down the nazi content, but leave up ISIS recruiting and terror bombing videos. We've already seen the Syria War crime video fiasco, so I think there is slippery slope already happening.
- kstrauser 9y ago
  > You are allowing speech on your internet to be arbitrated by a bunch of big corporations. I disagree. First, Apple and Google are refusing to host a particular app in their stores. But on the subject of hosting, there many thousands of web hosts, many in places that probably wouldn't care about serving such content. The oppressed literal Nazis can pick any one of those, but I think it's ludicrous to expect that any particular provider should be expected to serve it. Even if they're big and popular. Maybe especially then. Suppose Google were an Israeli company. I'd like to think we could all agree it would be unreasonable to call on them to demand they help disseminate literal Nazi content. Google and Apple aren't Israeli, but I don't think that makes it OK to insist they go along with it. And ultimately neither company is saying that you can't go find that information on your own, even using the browsers they provide. They're just saying they're not going to cooperate to make it easier and more convenient. I can't think that's a bad thing.

passwordreset 9y ago

I think that the author had a good point, that while we're worried about "hate speech", the real first amendment is being attacked in many other ways. That right wing terrorists want to take away the freedom of speech for Jews immigrants, and protestors. That companies now want to remove the free speech rights for their own customers. That politicians want to get rid of any speech that maligns them. I agree wholeheartedly with the author when said that these are the real threats to the first amendment. "Hate speech" isn't the issue. The issue is the scumbags spouting the hate.

toast0 9y ago

I'm a strong proponent of free speech, including abhorrent speech, but capricious removal from the platform stores doesn't offend me. On Android, it's not hard to install apks from websites. On iPhone, it's a lot harder, but iPhone is a minority of the market, and Apple has made a point of curating their store to some degree, I simply don't expect them to accept everything and they are inconsistent, too; but even old iPhones have enough economic value to trade for an Android, if the owner decides they don't like the aesthetic choices Apple has made with their app catalog. This feels significantly different than refusing to register a domain, or even refusing to host objectionable content. As a user, I expect app stores to perform some sort of judgement about apps, and not simply allow any app that is not unlawful.

yedava 9y ago

This is pure hyperbole. Mobile phones have these things called browsers where users can visit websites. Is having an app convenient? Yes, definitely. But in this case the lack of an app does not threaten the First Amendment.

eeks 9y ago
This is a dangerous argument. The government censors this or that site. But wait, you have a VPN? Then your rights are respected. Oh, the government forbids VPN. But wait, you have Tor? Then you rights are respected. Making one particular medium more difficult to access than other comparable medium is one kind of censorship and threatens the first amendment.
- valuearb 9y ago
  The first amendment does not allow the government to censor a site, so your post makes zero sense.

gremlinsinc 9y ago

The first amendment (in case you haven't even read it!) : 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. Nowhere in there does it say.. and by the way ALL corporations must ALSO allow freedom of speech. Their servers, their rules. The internet is about freedom and it goes both way -- you're free to say what you want and the site you post it to is free to remove that content if they deem it hurtful to others.

mike503 9y ago
YES. This. I have tried to remind people that the amendment is only about that. Corporations and anyone can do anything they want to (and risk the blowback)
- bencollier49 9y ago
  That's fine, but when most of civil society moves over to closed corporate eletronic platforms, you have to ask whether those platforms should have analogous rules, and if not, why not.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    That's a personal choice. If you don't like the restrictions of the most popular platforms, you can choose a different one. Freedom of speech can never be taken away by corporations. Open source software gives you the power to create your own platforms if none of the commercial ones meet your requirements.
  - gremlinsinc 9y ago
    These 'closed' entities like facebook...you realize their only power is the people... if people get fed up they can just leave... All the Nazi's are free to go leave start their own networks, and leave the rest of us in peace. Freedom of speech also doesn't mean we need to hear you rant on and on about 'white culture'. So if the majority of us complain, and FB/Google/Apple listen to the majority (i.e. democractically decide) that you're out -- then goodbye you've lost in the marketplace of ideas. I'm white, a mutt from Irish, German, and English stock, but white culture doesn't mean shit to me...now Irish, German, English culture--that actually means something. I'm sure there's probably some hispanic/indian could even be some african american.. I think a lot of racists would be surprised if they ever would ante up for a DNA test.

mercer 9y ago

I wish we'd disconnect the discussion about declining Nazis as customers from the discussion about whether certain platforms/products have become important or monopolistic enough that they should be regulated as a 'public' platform where freedom of speech is upheld. The former issue is almost impossible to discuss rationally at this point (which is understandable), whereas the latter strikes me as ultimately more important but also more complicated. Discussing them together makes everything more difficult...

tw04 9y ago
So which newspaper is forced to run stories on topics they don't like? I don't get how you could ever claim a private business should be forced to publish content they disagree with simply because they're a platform lots of people gravitate towards. You want to talk about erosion of rights? What next, scientific journals have to post bible passages alongside peer reviewed papers as a "counter-point"?
- tinalumfoil 9y ago
  Should the delivery provider of a newspaper be allowed to hold the days newspapers hostage because there's and article he doesn't like?
- mercer 9y ago
  I agree with you. I don't think a private business should be forced to publish content they disagree with simply because they're a platform lots of people gravitate towards. I'm not sure why you choose to 1) be antagonistic/hostile for no good reason, and 2) misinterpret my words, or worse, choose to put words in my mouth so you can go and be outraged about it. It does seem like a good illustration of the point I was trying to make, though.

alkonaut 9y ago

There is never an absolute and total freedom of speech. That is, there is always speech of the kind than a society cannot and must not tolerate. Either a country accepts this within its legal framework and has e.g hate speech laws (e.g Germany) or it doesn't (e.g US), but in the latter case as being "outside" the law - and it must be met with force outside the law. There are benefits and drawbacks to both models (which is why both exist). But at the end of the day there is little practical difference between "if you carry a nazi flag you'll go to jail" and "if you carry a nazi flag you'll be punched in the face". In both cases open society is judging and delivering the sentence. The notion that all speech must be accepted and never met with violent protest is both unrealistic and dangerous. So to get back on topic: 1st amendment protects the open society but doesn't function without an open society. Violent protestors at rallies and tech companies gagging fascists is what it needs, and not a problem.

renlo 9y ago
The thought that words or ideas should be met with violence concerns me. You're not going to end hate speech by attacking people, however wrong they may be. Google and Apple don't even need to adhere to the first amendment so I'm not sure why you conflated this with "hate speech should be met with violence", which would only cause more fighting and more violence (I doubt a Nazi would take a punch to the face without trying to throw his own punches, resulting in straight out combat between people with very strong notions of 'us' and 'them')
- alkonaut 9y ago
  What I meant was that everyone who values tolerance should defend it with the means they have available. A web host should deny hosting, an employer denies employment and a citizen denies use of public space for speaking hate and intolerance. What is necessary to deny this (whether it's enough to bring a vuvuzela) will vary. Punching nazis won't convert them, so it's probably counter productive - but disturb their rally and there is a risk you'll be attacked. No need to throw the first punch, ever.
  - 9y ago

Toboe 9y ago

> Perhaps it is time that spectrum licenses to mobile-phone companies be conditioned on their recipients providing freedoms for customers to use the apps of their choice. Do google and apple have any spectrum licenses? (ignoring that fact that you can install apps on android without needing googles consent)

PeachPlum 9y ago

This was the plan Hillary Clinton told the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in 2011 - https://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/state-department-meeting-with-oic-to-discuss-free-speech-restrictions https://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/state-department-meeting-... she had for restricting free speech in the US: > We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

kstrauser 9y ago
What part of "freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy" restricts free speech?
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  Did you miss "using old fashioned peer pressure and shaming"? The SoS telling foreigners how she will attack the free speech of the citizens she is supposed to representing.

chrisco255 9y ago

If this doesn't make the case to gradually shift to decentralized Blockchain based tooling for social networking, I don't know what does.

dzaragozar 9y ago

Mandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

throwaway2220 9y ago

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2017/08/unite-the-right-violence-trump-alt-right-white-america/ https://www.amren.com/commentary/2017/08/unite-the-right-vio... > Compare that to the response after a Muslim intentionally murders innocent people going about their daily routine. “We have to understand the conditions that lead these young men to do this.” “They lack job opportunities.” “This has nothing to do with Islam.” “Our military interventions are to blame.” > Similarly, after false reports that a police officer has shot the proverbial “unarmed black man” and violent riots ensue, we are told that socio-economic or educational inequities are the reason. Most everyone sees through this, but the show must go on. > A consistent theme becomes obvious–when non-whites commit crimes and even murder, the moral, enlightened thing to do is find out what bad thing white people did that caused their behavior. But when white people take to the streets as white people, unmitigated revulsion must be exhibited for all to see. ... > But what keeps bubbling to the surface and ruining this fantasy is human nature. All people desire to live in communities and countries that reflect their identities, cultures, and histories. That feeling—not particular political or economic systems—is foundational. And so, like trying to keep two opposing magnets in close contact, non-stop effort has to be made in multiracial societies to keep natural forces of repulsion from winning out. > But the grand diversity experiment in America is not just about seeing whether different racial and cultural groups can successfully coexist in the same country (history suggests they can’t); it is about denigrating white people and denying them a positive racial identity. The scope of this undertaking is striking–academia, media, entertainment, and politics are all saturated with various forms of white guilt and white shaming. > The resentments engendered by this psychological abuse are made worse when they’re dismissed as paranoia, or when dissenters are diagnosed as being “scared of people who don’t look like them” or “filled with hate.” > No people will tolerate this for long, and what we are seeing now is the inevitable blowback to decades of a one-sided culture war on white people.

klondike_ 9y ago

The argument here isn't really whether Google has the right to censor free speech or not. It clearly does, the First Amendment only applies to the government. The real issue here is how much control two companies have over nearly all of the country's computing. These devices are locked down to the point where Apple or Google choose what you can and can't do with your device, and give the user few ways around it (At least Android allows sideloading apps). Free computing will soon be dead. The internet isn't as bad, but is headed in the same direction. Information is being increasingly consolidated into CDNs. While you can still host a server yourself, I fear that soon that will be dis-incentivized: Just look at Google AMP. Not to mention the shaky status of Net Neutrality at the moment. None of this is illegal of course, private companies are free to do what they wish. However, the way things are heading is depressing.

emmelaich 9y ago
> The argument here isn't really whether Google has the right to censor free speech or not. It clearly does, the First Amendment only applies to the government. Mostly true but not completely true. Look up penumbral constitutional rights. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law) 2. https://journalism.ku.edu/cherry-picked-professor-studies-how-first-amendment-applies-private-companies-regulate-online-speech https://journalism.ku.edu/cherry-picked-professor-studies-ho...

scarface74 9y ago

How is not allowing an app on either App Store preventing people from exercising their free speech? Why do you need an app at all? They could easily just build a website and call it day.