3 ms·

Though tangential to the points in the article, there's also a common failure to distinguish between freedom from infringement of speech by the government, and

Though tangential to the points in the article, there's also a common failure to distinguish between freedom from infringement of speech by the government, and freedom from infringement by private parties. The former is guaranteed by the federal government; the latter is not (though some states provide limited protections [1]). Not to mention failure to distinguish exercise of free speech (permitted) from discrimination against protected classes (prohibited). (The old "I'm exercising my right to free speech by refusing to provide gays/blacks/etc. services" argument.) "My rights end where your rights begin" is an important pillar of modern society that really precludes any sort of absolutism about free speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Private_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...

shkkmo 9y ago
Both government and private parties can pose separate risks to free speech, but the value of freedom of speech in a society does not change based on where those risks are coming from. The point your are making is against the strawman argument that the first amendment should prohibit private companies editorial decisions. I haven't seen anyone making that claim. When the bill of rights was drafted, it was inconceivable that any company would have the level of control over speech that companies have today.
- colanderman 9y ago
  I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. (Your 2nd paragraph seems against, but your 3rd paragraph seems for.) Regardless, I'm not arguing either, I'm stating facts backed by case law as outlined in the linked Wikipedia article to support the thesis that the phrase "free speech" is used to mean many different things, often to deliberately confound discussion on the topic. If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; imagined prohibition of private restrictions; ability to override rights of protected classes) I suspect we'd have fewer, and more productive, discussions. Unfortunately such precision of language is hard to come by in this brave new world of emotion-driven discource and deliberately confounded communication.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    > I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. That might be because I thought it was obvious that the second amendment doesn't prohibit private entities from restricting speech. In fact, it is much more likely to prevent Congress from passing any law to limit the abilities of private entities to limit speech (since those editorial decisions count as speech.) > If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; My point is that there is no "flavor" of free speech only "flavors" of censorship. The importance of freedom of speech and its value to society does not change based on which "flavors" of censorship are being used. Ultimately, our misunderstandings might be based on you trying to refute an argument which does not occur in the article and of which you provide no concrete examples.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      But there are flavors of free speech. I, for one, don't believe that violent threats fall under free speech. I don't believe that makes me against free speech.
      - shkkmo 9y ago
        Violent threats are already illegal and I haven't seen anyone here arguing to make them legal. What is your point?
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal, and that sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats.
        9y ago
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I see plenty of people making that argument, so I don't think you could really call it a strawman.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    I've seen nobody here making that argument, and since it is presented as 'common' but with no concrete examples I am plenty happy calling it a strawman argument.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Here? No. But online? Yes.

shkkmo 9y ago

Both government and private parties can pose separate risks to free speech, but the value of freedom of speech in a society does not change based on where those risks are coming from. The point your are making is against the strawman argument that the first amendment should prohibit private companies editorial decisions. I haven't seen anyone making that claim. When the bill of rights was drafted, it was inconceivable that any company would have the level of control over speech that companies have today.

colanderman 9y ago
I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. (Your 2nd paragraph seems against, but your 3rd paragraph seems for.) Regardless, I'm not arguing either, I'm stating facts backed by case law as outlined in the linked Wikipedia article to support the thesis that the phrase "free speech" is used to mean many different things, often to deliberately confound discussion on the topic. If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; imagined prohibition of private restrictions; ability to override rights of protected classes) I suspect we'd have fewer, and more productive, discussions. Unfortunately such precision of language is hard to come by in this brave new world of emotion-driven discource and deliberately confounded communication.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- shkkmo 9y ago
  > I can't follow whether you're arguing for or against interpreting the first amendment as prohibiting restriction of speech by private entities. That might be because I thought it was obvious that the second amendment doesn't prohibit private entities from restricting speech. In fact, it is much more likely to prevent Congress from passing any law to limit the abilities of private entities to limit speech (since those editorial decisions count as speech.) > If supporters of "free speech" clarified what exactly what flavor of "free speech" they are talking about (1st amendment prohibition of federal restrictions; My point is that there is no "flavor" of free speech only "flavors" of censorship. The importance of freedom of speech and its value to society does not change based on which "flavors" of censorship are being used. Ultimately, our misunderstandings might be based on you trying to refute an argument which does not occur in the article and of which you provide no concrete examples.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    But there are flavors of free speech. I, for one, don't believe that violent threats fall under free speech. I don't believe that makes me against free speech.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      Violent threats are already illegal and I haven't seen anyone here arguing to make them legal. What is your point?
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal, and that sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats.
        9y ago
s73ver_ 9y ago
I see plenty of people making that argument, so I don't think you could really call it a strawman.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  I've seen nobody here making that argument, and since it is presented as 'common' but with no concrete examples I am plenty happy calling it a strawman argument.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Here? No. But online? Yes.