5 ms·

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. Further, certain kinds of s

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater. Note, too, it's easy to draw a line around advocating for racial supremacy and genocide without stepping onto the famous slippery slope. Anyway. "free speech" is not a uniform perfect right that applies maximally in all situations.

KGIII 9y ago
Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is entitled to ownership and thus the freedom of expression - within the bounds of the law? I really dislike Nazis, but I love the liberty of free speech more. It's hard to stand up for them, but it's not 'correct' speech that needs protection. And no, no I don't have realistic answers - other than to suggest we consider adding those protections to domain registry and regulate ISPs to ensure the ability of hosting private servers. I'm okay with saying nobody needs to host it. I'm not really okay with the domain not being allowed to be registered. There should be a solution for this. If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all. Edited to add: I posted it below, but I think it salient here - even if just for contrast. I am not white. I'm pretty sure these Nazis hate me. Given the chance, they'd probably harm me. Until they make an overt threat, or attempt, to do so - I am still not okay with depriving them of basic human rights. Yes, I feel that strongly about the freedom of expression. They don't scare me. I will never live in fear, nor will I ask that someone's rights be taken away without due process. My principles apply to more than speech which agree with.
- tyleraldrich 9y ago
  The platform isn't being taken away, they can have their free speech hosted in some guys garage and accessible at x.x.x.x I'm not accusing you of acting this way, but there are many "regulation is bad!" folks who now seem to think when it comes to hosting content on the internet, maybe it should be regulated so that private companies can't block people from doing basic things like registering a domain name if the company doesn't like it. This is the free market at work, and if the free market decides some speech is wrong, that's the free market America signed up for.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Presenting using only the IP address as a solution is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, I'm unsure of why you'd suggest there was a specific group of people and simultaneously assert that they are irrelevant to my comment. Feel free to levy any accusations about me that you want. However, I think my comment history stands as evidence. I'm not asserting that this is a right. I'm asserting that it should be a right.
- pnathan 9y ago
  > Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? I would neither disagree nor agree. Different theories of what a right is exist, and I don't believe it's a settled question enough to even claim that a $newer_thing is a right. > If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all. I understand this viewpoint. This is the "free speech maximalist" position. I disagree with it. I think there are bounds "beyond the usual pale" where no private institution should be asked to or forced to host it. It may be that the proper solution is for the US government, as the duly appointed host of the Public Space by long-standing tradition, to create a Public Forum for such things.
bmelton 9y ago
I think I expressly acknowledge that there's a difference, and I'm not looking for government intercession. > Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater You should really read this: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... and to a lesser extent, this: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Also, legislatively, the fighting words doctrine is basically toothless today, if it's not entirely dead. Worth noting though that punishments for use of speech are an entirely different thing than refusing to allow someone to speak. Again, I acknowledge that no one is beholden to DailyStormer, or any other nazi to hosting their site -- I get that, and it's not a decision that I particularly fault -- it just doesn't sit well with me that a website has apparently been searching for a host for some time now and can't find one. Maybe that's a testament to how far we've come as society -- perhaps if I were a better human, that's how I'd see it, but I see it as troubling, regardless of the content. > Anyway. "free speech" is not a uniform perfect right that applies maximally in all situations Nor have I suggested that it is, but it seems you think you understand the subject better than you do, and I think it's an important enough right to be informed on.
- pnathan 9y ago
  Popehat tends to be a highly libertarian site. I would prefer not to be instructed by a highly libertarian site. It usually contains presuppositions that render it of limited use in thinking about the matter. If you, however, have a link to a paper or op-ed put out by a reputable constitutional scholar in a reputable publication, e.g., Harvard Law Review, I would be more than happy to read such a thing.
notyourday 9y ago
> There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. So you do not support net neutrality, correct?
- pnathan 9y ago
  Not in the usual statement, no. I believe there's a compromise suitable for both technical reality (video makes huge demands on bandwidth, and bandwidth is finite) and neutral communication. Appropriate regulation, suitably delivered in a balance of philosophical care and technical care should solve the bulk of today's problems in this specific arena.

KGIII 9y ago

Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is entitled to ownership and thus the freedom of expression - within the bounds of the law? I really dislike Nazis, but I love the liberty of free speech more. It's hard to stand up for them, but it's not 'correct' speech that needs protection. And no, no I don't have realistic answers - other than to suggest we consider adding those protections to domain registry and regulate ISPs to ensure the ability of hosting private servers. I'm okay with saying nobody needs to host it. I'm not really okay with the domain not being allowed to be registered. There should be a solution for this. If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all. Edited to add: I posted it below, but I think it salient here - even if just for contrast. I am not white. I'm pretty sure these Nazis hate me. Given the chance, they'd probably harm me. Until they make an overt threat, or attempt, to do so - I am still not okay with depriving them of basic human rights. Yes, I feel that strongly about the freedom of expression. They don't scare me. I will never live in fear, nor will I ask that someone's rights be taken away without due process. My principles apply to more than speech which agree with.

tyleraldrich 9y ago
The platform isn't being taken away, they can have their free speech hosted in some guys garage and accessible at x.x.x.x I'm not accusing you of acting this way, but there are many "regulation is bad!" folks who now seem to think when it comes to hosting content on the internet, maybe it should be regulated so that private companies can't block people from doing basic things like registering a domain name if the company doesn't like it. This is the free market at work, and if the free market decides some speech is wrong, that's the free market America signed up for.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Presenting using only the IP address as a solution is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, I'm unsure of why you'd suggest there was a specific group of people and simultaneously assert that they are irrelevant to my comment. Feel free to levy any accusations about me that you want. However, I think my comment history stands as evidence. I'm not asserting that this is a right. I'm asserting that it should be a right.
pnathan 9y ago
> Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? I would neither disagree nor agree. Different theories of what a right is exist, and I don't believe it's a settled question enough to even claim that a $newer_thing is a right. > If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all. I understand this viewpoint. This is the "free speech maximalist" position. I disagree with it. I think there are bounds "beyond the usual pale" where no private institution should be asked to or forced to host it. It may be that the proper solution is for the US government, as the duly appointed host of the Public Space by long-standing tradition, to create a Public Forum for such things.

bmelton 9y ago

I think I expressly acknowledge that there's a difference, and I'm not looking for government intercession. > Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater You should really read this: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... and to a lesser extent, this: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Also, legislatively, the fighting words doctrine is basically toothless today, if it's not entirely dead. Worth noting though that punishments for use of speech are an entirely different thing than refusing to allow someone to speak. Again, I acknowledge that no one is beholden to DailyStormer, or any other nazi to hosting their site -- I get that, and it's not a decision that I particularly fault -- it just doesn't sit well with me that a website has apparently been searching for a host for some time now and can't find one. Maybe that's a testament to how far we've come as society -- perhaps if I were a better human, that's how I'd see it, but I see it as troubling, regardless of the content. > Anyway. "free speech" is not a uniform perfect right that applies maximally in all situations Nor have I suggested that it is, but it seems you think you understand the subject better than you do, and I think it's an important enough right to be informed on.

pnathan 9y ago
Popehat tends to be a highly libertarian site. I would prefer not to be instructed by a highly libertarian site. It usually contains presuppositions that render it of limited use in thinking about the matter. If you, however, have a link to a paper or op-ed put out by a reputable constitutional scholar in a reputable publication, e.g., Harvard Law Review, I would be more than happy to read such a thing.

notyourday 9y ago

> There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. So you do not support net neutrality, correct?

pnathan 9y ago
Not in the usual statement, no. I believe there's a compromise suitable for both technical reality (video makes huge demands on bandwidth, and bandwidth is finite) and neutral communication. Appropriate regulation, suitably delivered in a balance of philosophical care and technical care should solve the bulk of today's problems in this specific arena.