5 ms·

Yeah, free speech doesn't mean others have to pay to say something they don't like. It means you can say it. And at your own expense.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
In this case, New America is a non-profit: > New America is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and all donations are tax deductible. - https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/ https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/ So while they do receive funding from Google, if Google is permitted to control the discourse in this way we should ask if New America deserves non-profit status and whether Google should be able to deduct monies spent on the entity.
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  And what about other people that give to non-profits? Should they also be made to continue giving even if they no longer agree with what the non-profit is doing?
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    Nobody makes anyone give money to a nonprofit...
  - dcole2929 9y ago
    No one can or should be able to force you to donate your money to any endeavor. That said it's fair to question whether an organization that is currently enjoying a tax free exemption on the basis of being a independent non profit should continue to enjoy that status after proving they are not in fact independent. It's likewise fair to question whether any person donating to that organization deserves to write off their donations if the receiving organization acts more like a pr division of the giver. My personal opinion is that if an organization receives more than 50% of it's funding from one source, it's no longer independent and shouldn't be treated as such
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - hpcjoe 9y ago
    ... no ... the essence of free speech is free association and dissociation with people, ideas, and narratives. There should be no compulsion or "made to continue giving" if they disagree. In this aspect, google would be well within its rights to discontinue funding speech it no longer agreed with. Its within its rights to attempt to influence a narrative. But there are optics associated with this, and people who may be (rightfully or wrongfully) suspicious of its motives, who would take such actions as confirmation of their own pet theories. Without reflecting on how common a pattern this is, if this is what happened, then it happened. And its not wrong for google to ask for tighter conformity to its preferred narrative. Its not wrong for the think tank to offer this tighter conformity. It just looks ... well ... bad. Google acting in their own self interest is rational. Doesn't mean its "good" or "bad" in a wider context, but it is rational.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    They wouldn't be made to continue. But if it's clear that the actions of a given non-profit are really for the financial benefit of their 'donors' then then they should be taxed like any other marketing division.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    No, but of course that's not what happened. They said shut down the open markets division or we'll pull funding. And probably there was something like "oh yeah and when you're looking at what our lost patronage does to your bottom line, remember that I also play golf with 4-5 of your other patrons so think very carefully"
  - stretchwithme 9y ago
    I was being absurd here on purpose, as I was responding to a statement that implied this is what should be done. And it seems to have been edited since. I guess I should have quoted it. But looks like people thought I was serious.
- cakeface 9y ago
  All non profits have a purpose and companies as well as individuals support the non profit expressly because they have a purpose. If a company or individual thinks that a non profit is acting against that purpose then they can communicate that to the group or stop funding it. This does not make the organization a "for profit" group. It is a disagreement over the purpose of the organization and how they work to achieve that purpose.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    New America is a think tank and civic enterprise committed to renewing American politics, prosperity, and purpose in the Digital Age. We generate big ideas, bridge the gap between technology and policy, and curate broad public conversation. Structurally, we combine the best of a policy research institute, technology laboratory, public forum, media platform, and a venture capital fund for ideas. We are a distinctive community of thinkers, writers, researchers, technologists, and community activists who believe deeply in the possibility of American renewal. Very hard to argue against free speech with a mission statement focused on ideas, research, and "public conversation" For fun, the Open Markets division in particular: The Open Markets program at New America was founded to protect liberty and democracy in America from extreme concentrations of economic and political power. We do so by researching and reporting on the political and economic dangers posed by monopolization—in the United States and in the international system—and identifying ways to reestablish America’s political economy on a more fair, secure, and stable footing. Google gave money to a non-profit with an anti-monopoly division and then got mad when the anti-monopoly division praised anti-monopoly legislation that just happened to hurt Google.
quadrangle 9y ago
No, free speech means speech without consequences. And it doesn't exist in the extreme absolute version. The more consequences of speech, the less free it is. The 1st amendment protects speech from government consequences, even though it isn't absolute. Consequences in the private market still reduce the freedom of speech even though they have nothing to do with the Constitution. And if someone finds their freedom reduced, they can perfectly reasonably complain about it. And you can rationally talk about how the reduction was fair or that it wasn't. You can't rationally deny the reduction. EDIT: I barely ever do this sort of edit, but c'mon. People downvoted this? It's like some people are opposed to plain truth. Nothing above is remotely questionable.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

In this case, New America is a non-profit: > New America is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and all donations are tax deductible. - https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/ https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/ So while they do receive funding from Google, if Google is permitted to control the discourse in this way we should ask if New America deserves non-profit status and whether Google should be able to deduct monies spent on the entity.

stretchwithme 9y ago
And what about other people that give to non-profits? Should they also be made to continue giving even if they no longer agree with what the non-profit is doing?
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  Nobody makes anyone give money to a nonprofit...
- dcole2929 9y ago
  No one can or should be able to force you to donate your money to any endeavor. That said it's fair to question whether an organization that is currently enjoying a tax free exemption on the basis of being a independent non profit should continue to enjoy that status after proving they are not in fact independent. It's likewise fair to question whether any person donating to that organization deserves to write off their donations if the receiving organization acts more like a pr division of the giver. My personal opinion is that if an organization receives more than 50% of it's funding from one source, it's no longer independent and shouldn't be treated as such
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- hpcjoe 9y ago
  ... no ... the essence of free speech is free association and dissociation with people, ideas, and narratives. There should be no compulsion or "made to continue giving" if they disagree. In this aspect, google would be well within its rights to discontinue funding speech it no longer agreed with. Its within its rights to attempt to influence a narrative. But there are optics associated with this, and people who may be (rightfully or wrongfully) suspicious of its motives, who would take such actions as confirmation of their own pet theories. Without reflecting on how common a pattern this is, if this is what happened, then it happened. And its not wrong for google to ask for tighter conformity to its preferred narrative. Its not wrong for the think tank to offer this tighter conformity. It just looks ... well ... bad. Google acting in their own self interest is rational. Doesn't mean its "good" or "bad" in a wider context, but it is rational.
- Spivak 9y ago
  They wouldn't be made to continue. But if it's clear that the actions of a given non-profit are really for the financial benefit of their 'donors' then then they should be taxed like any other marketing division.
- Goladus 9y ago
  No, but of course that's not what happened. They said shut down the open markets division or we'll pull funding. And probably there was something like "oh yeah and when you're looking at what our lost patronage does to your bottom line, remember that I also play golf with 4-5 of your other patrons so think very carefully"
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  I was being absurd here on purpose, as I was responding to a statement that implied this is what should be done. And it seems to have been edited since. I guess I should have quoted it. But looks like people thought I was serious.
cakeface 9y ago
All non profits have a purpose and companies as well as individuals support the non profit expressly because they have a purpose. If a company or individual thinks that a non profit is acting against that purpose then they can communicate that to the group or stop funding it. This does not make the organization a "for profit" group. It is a disagreement over the purpose of the organization and how they work to achieve that purpose.
- Goladus 9y ago
  New America is a think tank and civic enterprise committed to renewing American politics, prosperity, and purpose in the Digital Age. We generate big ideas, bridge the gap between technology and policy, and curate broad public conversation. Structurally, we combine the best of a policy research institute, technology laboratory, public forum, media platform, and a venture capital fund for ideas. We are a distinctive community of thinkers, writers, researchers, technologists, and community activists who believe deeply in the possibility of American renewal. Very hard to argue against free speech with a mission statement focused on ideas, research, and "public conversation" For fun, the Open Markets division in particular: The Open Markets program at New America was founded to protect liberty and democracy in America from extreme concentrations of economic and political power. We do so by researching and reporting on the political and economic dangers posed by monopolization—in the United States and in the international system—and identifying ways to reestablish America’s political economy on a more fair, secure, and stable footing. Google gave money to a non-profit with an anti-monopoly division and then got mad when the anti-monopoly division praised anti-monopoly legislation that just happened to hurt Google.

quadrangle 9y ago

No, free speech means speech without consequences. And it doesn't exist in the extreme absolute version. The more consequences of speech, the less free it is. The 1st amendment protects speech from government consequences, even though it isn't absolute. Consequences in the private market still reduce the freedom of speech even though they have nothing to do with the Constitution. And if someone finds their freedom reduced, they can perfectly reasonably complain about it. And you can rationally talk about how the reduction was fair or that it wasn't. You can't rationally deny the reduction. EDIT: I barely ever do this sort of edit, but c'mon. People downvoted this? It's like some people are opposed to plain truth. Nothing above is remotely questionable.