4 ms·

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 super

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?
    - valuearb 9y ago
      This isn't a science fiction-fantasy short story. Facebook can't control shit. You will always have freedom of speech in your home, and you can always choose a free platform to share your thoughts on, even if you have to build it yourself from open source software. What you actually are describing is government driven tyranny. UPS and FedEx and Facebook have no direct commercial interest in censoring you. The reason they take any interest in your parcels and posts is because our government and our legal system has required them to. They have been made liable if they ship your letter bombs or share your hate speech. If you are afraid of a society where all corporations restrict your rights in concert, you are actually afraid of an overarching government without limits that's stripped you of your rights and uses corporations to extend it's reach. There is actually a name for this type of government, they call it Socialism.
      - gremlinsinc 9y ago
        Socialism is actually an economic concept not a form of government just as Capitalism isn't our form of government, but Republic is. Socialism means pooling resources to get shared commodities for instance: Public roads and Firehouses are socialist programs as is Medicare/Medicaid and single-payer healthcare. I think you're thinking more of Fascism: Definition: Fascism is a way of ruling that advocates total control of the people. ... Fascism comes from the Latin fascio, meaning “bundle, or political group.” In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        It would be an authoritarian plutocracy. Power is held in the hands of a small group of super rich. Fascism isn't a form of government either, it was the name of Mussolini's party which has since been applied to any authoritarian or nationalist movement.
        valuearb 9y ago
        All socialist governments are plutocracies. Witness Venezuala where Chavez divvied up the economy and gave all the pieces to his closest friends. Those in power always enrich themselves just as Putin and his cronies have.

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?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    This isn't a science fiction-fantasy short story. Facebook can't control shit. You will always have freedom of speech in your home, and you can always choose a free platform to share your thoughts on, even if you have to build it yourself from open source software. What you actually are describing is government driven tyranny. UPS and FedEx and Facebook have no direct commercial interest in censoring you. The reason they take any interest in your parcels and posts is because our government and our legal system has required them to. They have been made liable if they ship your letter bombs or share your hate speech. If you are afraid of a society where all corporations restrict your rights in concert, you are actually afraid of an overarching government without limits that's stripped you of your rights and uses corporations to extend it's reach. There is actually a name for this type of government, they call it Socialism.
    - gremlinsinc 9y ago
      Socialism is actually an economic concept not a form of government just as Capitalism isn't our form of government, but Republic is. Socialism means pooling resources to get shared commodities for instance: Public roads and Firehouses are socialist programs as is Medicare/Medicaid and single-payer healthcare. I think you're thinking more of Fascism: Definition: Fascism is a way of ruling that advocates total control of the people. ... Fascism comes from the Latin fascio, meaning “bundle, or political group.” In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        It would be an authoritarian plutocracy. Power is held in the hands of a small group of super rich. Fascism isn't a form of government either, it was the name of Mussolini's party which has since been applied to any authoritarian or nationalist movement.
        valuearb 9y ago
        All socialist governments are plutocracies. Witness Venezuala where Chavez divvied up the economy and gave all the pieces to his closest friends. Those in power always enrich themselves just as Putin and his cronies have.