4 ms·

The point they made doesn’t just apply to government

eesmith 9y ago
I know that's the argument, but it's not true. The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or, to go back to John Stuart Mill: > This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. That "liberty of expressing and publishing opinions" is the the freedom of speech. The "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others" is the freedom of assembly. The freedom of assembly - often seen as synonymous with the freedom of association - means that a group must be allowed to expel people from the group or prevent people from joining the group. A group must be allowed to control who speaks at a group's meeting or uses a group's resources. (This is not absolute, as you can see in civil rights laws prevent businesses from certain behaviors.) Without this freedom, a minority group can easily be overwhelmed by a majority who decides to use the heckler's veto. For all of the people who say that "free speech" is not restricted to government restrictions on speech, why do you want to weaken the right to assembly?
- shkkmo 9y ago
  "Free Speech" is a valuable trait of a society. Government restrictions on that speech were (and still are) the largest threat to that freedom when the bill of rights was written. We have reached a point where government is not the only entity with the power to severely restrict the freedom of speech in our society. Is the solution to this to pass a new law or make a new amendment curtailing freedom of associated? I personally don't think we have the political capability to write that law well, (even if it wasn't a horrible idea.) But that doesn't mean we should should pushing, encouraging and shaming these private entities into doing MORE censorship and doing our best as private entities to limit the freedom of speech that exists in our society.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes? Without touching the freedom of assembly or speech. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but bring it up to point out that it's important to also consider the economics which caused the problem to arise in the first place. Remember, unrestrained capitalism doesn't incorporate human rights - as the slave trade shows.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      > Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes? While we do strongly need a revamp of our anti-monopoly laws, I don't think that really solves the problem. The core problem as I see it is that people's goto approach for combating objectionable ideas is veering towards shaming, ostracizing, and censoring rather than reason, discussion and facts.
      - eradicatethots 9y ago
        It’s not really practical to combat ideas with reason, after a while.
        9y ago

I know that's the argument, but it's not true. The US First Amendment isn't just the right to free speech. It also includes the freedom of assembly. There is a necessary balance between these two. Or, to go back to John Stuart Mill: > This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. That "liberty of expressing and publishing opinions" is the the freedom of speech. The "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others" is the freedom of assembly. The freedom of assembly - often seen as synonymous with the freedom of association - means that a group must be allowed to expel people from the group or prevent people from joining the group. A group must be allowed to control who speaks at a group's meeting or uses a group's resources. (This is not absolute, as you can see in civil rights laws prevent businesses from certain behaviors.) Without this freedom, a minority group can easily be overwhelmed by a majority who decides to use the heckler's veto. For all of the people who say that "free speech" is not restricted to government restrictions on speech, why do you want to weaken the right to assembly?

shkkmo 9y ago
"Free Speech" is a valuable trait of a society. Government restrictions on that speech were (and still are) the largest threat to that freedom when the bill of rights was written. We have reached a point where government is not the only entity with the power to severely restrict the freedom of speech in our society. Is the solution to this to pass a new law or make a new amendment curtailing freedom of associated? I personally don't think we have the political capability to write that law well, (even if it wasn't a horrible idea.) But that doesn't mean we should should pushing, encouraging and shaming these private entities into doing MORE censorship and doing our best as private entities to limit the freedom of speech that exists in our society.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes? Without touching the freedom of assembly or speech. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but bring it up to point out that it's important to also consider the economics which caused the problem to arise in the first place. Remember, unrestrained capitalism doesn't incorporate human rights - as the slave trade shows.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    > Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes? While we do strongly need a revamp of our anti-monopoly laws, I don't think that really solves the problem. The core problem as I see it is that people's goto approach for combating objectionable ideas is veering towards shaming, ostracizing, and censoring rather than reason, discussion and facts.
    - eradicatethots 9y ago
      It’s not really practical to combat ideas with reason, after a while.
      - 9y ago