5 ms·

> Nobody should get any praise for just not violating the law That's not people's point. Sorry but you're taking the wrong idea from the argument. The point is

> Nobody should get any praise for just not violating the law That's not people's point. Sorry but you're taking the wrong idea from the argument. The point is that there are no laws in the United States that demand private forums have any semblance of "free speech". It's not that it's "not illegal". It's just simply not a concept that has any laws backing it up. People bring this up because if you have any background in constitutional law, you know that free speech is something that took a long time to define (and most people don't even know what it is...). It's a legal concept, not a societal one. So when you complain that Paypal isn't respecting your free speech, anyone with a background in law goes "???" Free speech is a legal term. When you say "Free Speech" you're referring to a very specific set of laws and rules that apply to public entities in the U.S. - not private ones. If you're actually talking about a sociological concept, then preface it as such. And if you feel that the laws don't match up in the United States to our perceived values, then say that as well. But as is, Paypal has nothing to do with free speech. If you want to talk about some other idea, that's not the legal concept of free speech, but how you want Internet companies to operate in the U.S. you need to preface your statement as such. Otherwise it just comes across as if you don't know what free speech is, so people respond with the tried and true "Paypal isn't the government". They're not trying to shut down any possibility of Paypal being regulated in a way that matches our current definition of free speech, just correcting your improper use of the term (is it pompous? I would say it could be framed better.) In other words, ya'll are arguing circles around each other.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The point is that there are no laws in the United States that demand private forums have any semblance of "free speech". The first amendment gives the forum free speech, which means that the forum is free to decide what speech it will relay and what speech it will not.
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  Yeah I meant in terms of what the forum can regulate on behalf of its members - not in terms of the forum's collective ability to speak. I worded that badly I'll admit.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Right, I was leveraging the imprecise wording to segue into an explanation that not only is there no law restricting forum operators from regulating content, but actually a fundamental law protecting their right to do so.
yorwba 9y ago
> When you say "Free Speech" You are the only person in this thread who has used "free speech" in a comment so far. > If you want to talk about some other idea, that's not the legal concept of free speech, but how you want Internet companies to operate in the U.S. The comment you are responding to did just that.
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  I'm sorry, of course he didn't use those words exactly you're correct. There's no need to be so pedantic though, clearly that's the concept the people he is responding to are talking about. A says that this should be considered "free speech" (not in words but in intention) B says that Paypal isn't a government entity. C says that shouldn't matter. I'm responding to C, so I say "When you say Free Speech" as a rhetorical technique to recenter our argument on the thing actually being discussed. I apologize if there was confusion or it seemed I was being clever or something.
smsm42 9y ago
> The point is that there are no laws in the United States that demand private forums have any semblance of "free speech". Since when the only requirement from people to behave decently is that they are forced to do it by the threat of violence from the government? Can't we ask people not to be jerks without threatening them with jail? > It's a legal concept, not a societal one Nope, it is a societal one. Legal one follows from that. Laws are created by society, they are not some independent reality that exists by itself. Laws about free speech exist because society values free speech, if it didn't, such laws won't exist - and indeed, societies that do not value such concepts don't have such laws. > Free speech is a legal term. Nope again. There is a legal term "free speech", but claiming that's all there is is switching the cause and effect. We value free speech not because we are forced by the laws, given us by Gods. We create laws valuing free speech because we think free speech is a good idea, required for well-functioning society. > But as is, Paypal has nothing to do with free speech They have tons to do with free speech - they try to use their power as a major payment provider in order to limit it and suppress people that speak in ways they do not approve of. Of course, their power is not absolute and is no match for the vast powers of the government - but that does not make such use of their power, whatever they have, any less despicable. Maybe less dangerous, yes, but there's no rule that we should only address the very largest threat and completely ignore the lesser ones. > Otherwise it just comes across as if you don't know what free speech is No, I know what "free speech" is. That's exactly why I am tired of reducing the concept to bare legalese. It never was that, it is not that, and it will never be that. > just correcting your improper use of the term By that revealing that they do not understand the term and have faulty understanding of why we have all these laws at all.
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  We can always ask people to not be jerks. Free speech is indeed a societal concept. In the context of This conversation on this subject however, it is a legal one. We are asking what Paypal should do. Paypal is a corporation. They should do whatever benefits them and their shareholders the most. They are currently doing that. Even if you don't agree morally, that is what they are doing. Therefore, our societal definition of free speech does not match with our legal one. Thus we must change our legal one. Therefore, I claim that our conversation is implicitly and inherently about the legal definition of free speech and what that should be. Paypal has no obligation, no requirement to do anything unless the law is changed accordingly. Otherwise they will continue to operate in the way that benefits them and their shareholders the most. My point was simply that you're not explictly asking to change the law when you should be. As the law is currently written Paypal is doing everything right. If that is still wrong for a moral and societal perspective, how do we change the laws to match? Specifically, how do you change the laws in a way that upholds our previous decisions and court cases because these have served as bedrock principles. I wasn't attacking you mate, my bad - just trying to get you to be more specific.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The point is that there are no laws in the United States that demand private forums have any semblance of "free speech". The first amendment gives the forum free speech, which means that the forum is free to decide what speech it will relay and what speech it will not.

spaceseaman 9y ago
Yeah I meant in terms of what the forum can regulate on behalf of its members - not in terms of the forum's collective ability to speak. I worded that badly I'll admit.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Right, I was leveraging the imprecise wording to segue into an explanation that not only is there no law restricting forum operators from regulating content, but actually a fundamental law protecting their right to do so.

yorwba 9y ago

> When you say "Free Speech" You are the only person in this thread who has used "free speech" in a comment so far. > If you want to talk about some other idea, that's not the legal concept of free speech, but how you want Internet companies to operate in the U.S. The comment you are responding to did just that.

spaceseaman 9y ago
I'm sorry, of course he didn't use those words exactly you're correct. There's no need to be so pedantic though, clearly that's the concept the people he is responding to are talking about. A says that this should be considered "free speech" (not in words but in intention) B says that Paypal isn't a government entity. C says that shouldn't matter. I'm responding to C, so I say "When you say Free Speech" as a rhetorical technique to recenter our argument on the thing actually being discussed. I apologize if there was confusion or it seemed I was being clever or something.

smsm42 9y ago

> The point is that there are no laws in the United States that demand private forums have any semblance of "free speech". Since when the only requirement from people to behave decently is that they are forced to do it by the threat of violence from the government? Can't we ask people not to be jerks without threatening them with jail? > It's a legal concept, not a societal one Nope, it is a societal one. Legal one follows from that. Laws are created by society, they are not some independent reality that exists by itself. Laws about free speech exist because society values free speech, if it didn't, such laws won't exist - and indeed, societies that do not value such concepts don't have such laws. > Free speech is a legal term. Nope again. There is a legal term "free speech", but claiming that's all there is is switching the cause and effect. We value free speech not because we are forced by the laws, given us by Gods. We create laws valuing free speech because we think free speech is a good idea, required for well-functioning society. > But as is, Paypal has nothing to do with free speech They have tons to do with free speech - they try to use their power as a major payment provider in order to limit it and suppress people that speak in ways they do not approve of. Of course, their power is not absolute and is no match for the vast powers of the government - but that does not make such use of their power, whatever they have, any less despicable. Maybe less dangerous, yes, but there's no rule that we should only address the very largest threat and completely ignore the lesser ones. > Otherwise it just comes across as if you don't know what free speech is No, I know what "free speech" is. That's exactly why I am tired of reducing the concept to bare legalese. It never was that, it is not that, and it will never be that. > just correcting your improper use of the term By that revealing that they do not understand the term and have faulty understanding of why we have all these laws at all.

spaceseaman 9y ago
We can always ask people to not be jerks. Free speech is indeed a societal concept. In the context of This conversation on this subject however, it is a legal one. We are asking what Paypal should do. Paypal is a corporation. They should do whatever benefits them and their shareholders the most. They are currently doing that. Even if you don't agree morally, that is what they are doing. Therefore, our societal definition of free speech does not match with our legal one. Thus we must change our legal one. Therefore, I claim that our conversation is implicitly and inherently about the legal definition of free speech and what that should be. Paypal has no obligation, no requirement to do anything unless the law is changed accordingly. Otherwise they will continue to operate in the way that benefits them and their shareholders the most. My point was simply that you're not explictly asking to change the law when you should be. As the law is currently written Paypal is doing everything right. If that is still wrong for a moral and societal perspective, how do we change the laws to match? Specifically, how do you change the laws in a way that upholds our previous decisions and court cases because these have served as bedrock principles. I wasn't attacking you mate, my bad - just trying to get you to be more specific.