7 ms·

I see arguments like this from time to time about free speech, and it always strikes me as missing the point or being myopic. Free speech isn't important becau

I see arguments like this from time to time about free speech, and it always strikes me as missing the point or being myopic. Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech.

Retra 9y ago
The ideal of free speech is not violated by twitter banning someone's account due to abusive behavior. It's violated when you apply military or police force to repress people. That's why it's in the constitution. That's why those constitutional restrictions apply to the government and not to private entities.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  What is Trump's abusive Twitter behavior?
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    Explicit threats: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/911789314169823232 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/91178931416982323... Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480 https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480
    - Domenic_S 9y ago
      I don't think you know what "explicit" means.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        "explicit (adj): stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.
        Domenic_S 9y ago
        Am I taking crazy pills? If he had said, "...then I'm going to order a nuclear strike", that would have been explicit. Saying "they won't be around much longer" is a veiled threat, the threat is implicit.
        kelnos 9y ago
        What's the point of this subthread? Whether or not that particular tweet embodies an explicit or implicit threat is irrelevant. Implicit threats clearly fall under the umbrella of "abusive Twitter behavior" as well.
        tree_of_item 9y ago
        The point is they said it was explicit, but it wasn't.
        kelnos 9y ago
        So the purpose of this thread is to enforce pedantry and ignore the actual point of the discussion. Got it.
        tree_of_item 9y ago
        Yeah, sorry, but that tweet is an implicit threat. What does he mean by "won't be around much longer"? The fact that you can even ask that question means it's implicit.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      You’re bothered by the leader of the US applying military leverage against our enemies? That’s literally his job. Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below: 1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations. 2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then. 3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but... 4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers. Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me. Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast. I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).
      - Retra 9y ago
        His job is to command the military over twitter?
        marcoperaza 9y ago
        No, he is trying to convince the North Korean regime that we are willing to use military force to achieve our objectives. Making statements to that effect to his domestic audience is part of convincing the North Koreans that we will actually do it. If they think he is bluffing, then they won’t submit. This is basic diplomacy theory.
  - Retra 9y ago
    I'm arguing that one can ban someone from twitter without violating the spirit of free speech. It's not really relevant to my point whether Trump's behavior is abusive or not on account of the fact that I'm not trying to make philosophical points which only apply to him. The idea that a twitter ban is somehow a violation of free speech is farcical. It'd make almost as much sense to say a 140 char limit is a violation of free speech, and in practice, it's probably worse than a ban.
- detcader 9y ago
  Is there precedent for that? As in has there been other leaders whose twitter accounts have been taken down in the past for ordering military/police forces to do things?
  - frostburg 9y ago
    Other leaders realize that they aren't actually using the proper channels when giving 'orders' on Twitter and generally don't even attempt to do so, so probably no, Trump is uniquely unqualified.
shepardrtc 9y ago
So they should be required to keep his account up no matter what happens?
- detcader 9y ago
  What would be an example of something they should take his account down for that would otherwise be legal to post?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  "No matter what happens" is a ridiculous condition, and I think you know that. However, from Twitter's about page: > Our mission: Give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers. Give everyone. Not give people I agree with, or people I think are good -- everyone. It's an admirable, worthwhile goal. Whether they'll stick to it or not....
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  That’s not what he said. If I say “Twitter should not ban shepardrtc”, I am not saying that Twitter should not ban you no matter what you do. As for Trump, there is certainly a case for treating his account differently. He is the President of the United States. These aren’t the musings of someone who doesn’t matter. They are the thoughts, intentions, and announcements of the most powerful man in the world. In the same way that Twitter wouldn’t censor horrifying but true news, they shouldn’t censor the President. Anything that the President tweets is news. Imagine if they banned him and he moved to another site. Would Twitter then ban people for reporting, on Twitter, what the President said?
  - panic 9y ago
    I agree that they should treat his account differently, but in the other direction. The fact that his words matter so much means they should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
oaijdsfoaijsf 9y ago
Heh? It is also part of their political speech to keep or delete his account. That is an equally important aspect of the free speech right -- the option to allow one's property to be used for a certain type of speech, or not. Not saying I think they should or shouldn't, but you can't evaluate the free speech implications of their deleting his account while only considering his free speech rights. Theirs are equally important.
- eksu 9y ago
  Twitter and other social media networks should be seen as common carriers and not interfere with what people post. Twitter should be able to exercise their free speech on their own twitter account, not by censoring other users. It is ideal for social media to be common carriers the same way the net should be neutral.
  - lobf 9y ago
    Why is that ideal? Social media censors dangerous / disruptive (to the community) shit all the time, which is appropriate IMO.
lmkg 9y ago
On the other hand, Twitter also has a right to free speech. They're perfectly within their rights to promote their own opinions or viewpoints. I would assume that also includes the right to selectively amplify the voices of other based on agreeing with their viewpoints. Because Twitter is a platform for the communication of others, they find themselves in an ironic situation: adhering to the principle of free speech means giving up, or at least severely restricting, their own ability to exercise that right. I think it would be noble of them to accept that restriction voluntarily, but it would be problematic if it were required of them.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  You make it seem like you disagree with the person you’re replying to. But don’t you see? You agree with him. That exactly what he’s saying: what Twitter legally can do is different than what they should do.
  - lmkg 9y ago
    It sounds like I'm disagreeing with the person because I'm disagreeing with the person. I don't think that what Twitter can do and what they should do are at variance, because I don't think Twitter has a moral obligation to allow others freedom of expression on their tool. Even if Twitter wanted to promote freedom of expression, there's an inherent contradiction between allowing others to express their opinion and them expressing their own opinion. I think someone whose promotion of freedom of expression involves denying themselves that same freedom is sending a mixed message. Because their support of the principle would have those reservations, they don't have an obligation to provide it.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      I don't really think you're disagreeing. If Twitter wants to promote free expression, which I would think of as supporting the ideal of free speech, then they shouldn't ban Trump. If Twitter wants to ban Trump then they are in conflict with the ideal of free speech, or in your terms they aren't promoting freedom of expression by banning Trump. Twitter has claimed in their own promotional material to support free expression, so it may be a bit disingenuous for you to suggest they may not want to promote free expression.
JH0nl0ShaGv5KSn 9y ago
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech. Even the "ideal" of free speech refers only to speech on public property outside of the control an organization. There is no ideal of free speech that says a) you should be able to say whatever you want on private property, or b) that organizations should sanction members for speech they do not approve of. Twitter is well within the ideal of free speech should they choose to kick Donald Trump off their site, on the grounds of a) not liking what he uses their private property to say, and b) wanting to sanction him as a member (i.e. user) of their organization for what he says. Of course, the ideal of free speech and what's written in the constitution are synonymous, as far as the American ideal of free speech is concerned. Different nations have different ideals.
- will4274 9y ago
  Twitter's brand is being public. As far as I can tell, Twitter survives on a revolving cycle of celebrity and news coverage. They almost went broke until the world's biggest celebrity (POTUS) brought their popularity back. So when people express outrage about Twitter restricting speech, it's the same emotion as RadioShack selling their customer list - not as advertised.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  No, the ideal of free speech is that you should get to express yourself, and I should get to express myself. Through discussion we may gain common understanding and benefit. We can discover unfamiliar perspectives, debate ideas, and figure out meaningful truths. We both will also appreciate the opportunity to have our thoughts heard - whatever they may be. Stopping speech because you dislike the speaker, or disagree with what's being said is the antithesis of this ideal. Again, of course Twitter legally could ban Trump. Doing so would not be in keeping with the ideal of free speech.
rdtsc 9y ago
Yeah but it's their infrastructure, servers, their policy, their rules. As a company they might not give a crap about the ideal of free speech. Especially if they don't have any competitors in the market. They might bear the consequence of applying their rules or squashing some speech and not other, by people deleting their accounts, or press writing mean things about them. But they are free to make that trade-off. The Constitution while talking about ideal, talked about them in the context of the relationship between the government and its people. It was mostly about protecting the people from the government.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Sure. If they don't care about free speech, that's their prerogative. I'm saying you can be critical of Twitter on that basis, and it would be no defense against criticism to observe that they aren't legally required to care about free speech.
Joeboy 9y ago
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Also for almost everyone on Earth it's not "in the constitution" because we don't live in the US.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  And yet, free speech is still important even to those who don't have such protections codified into law.
mst 9y ago
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Currently basically facedesking at never coming up with this phrasing of it myself. Filed under "good enough that it's obvious as soon as you've seen it". Thank you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Bud 9y ago
No, they would not be violating any "ideal of free speech", and if you think this, you still haven't understood what First Amendment rights are actually about.
throwaway613834 9y ago
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Actually it's in the Constitution because it's important for a different reason than most people think. If you read the Bill of Rights carefully (and I mean thinking about the reasons behind them and their implications and interpretations over time, beyond what you see in school) you gradually come to realize that they were not meant to be declarations of your rights at all. (This is very much in contrast to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is such a thing.) Rather, they have been very much intended to be protections against the government, i.e. limitations on what the government can do. This is not obvious, and it has nontrivial implications. The 5th amendment is the clearest example of this, but this theme goes across all the amendments. The "right against self-incrimination" is not actually declaring a fundamental right. Ever think about why there would there be such a right? It's surely not the kind of thing I'd think of when writing a Constitution, and the same is probably true for you. Furthermore, if it's a right, then why does it go away once you are given immunity? And why doesn't it exist for other people (even those in your own family)? The reason that right exists is that they wanted to protect against torture, which was used to extract forced confessions, and they decided to grant this right to reach that goal. Otherwise, they did not by any means believe that it would be somehow wrong for a judge to compel you to produce testimony. That's why the right is so limited: it doesn't apply to testifying against other people, nor does it apply to yourself once you have immunity. Yet most people don't realize this and think it's there because it's somehow deemed to be a human right. The same goes for the freedoms of speech, press, association, and the right to bear arms, etc... those are, again, meant to protect against common practices of oppressive governments. They are not declarations of intrinsic human rights. It's probably a somewhat radical departure from what you've learned, but I think it's worth realizing this. In particular, it implies even more strongly that the right to free speech was NOT imagined to be something that anyone but the government should worry about.
- wahern 9y ago
  The right against self-incrimination enshrines a personal right that developed under English Common Law in response to Star Chamber inquisitions. It's not about oppressive governments, per se, but rather a belief that it's immoral to put someone under oath (to God) and pit himself against himself--tell the truth and face death, or lie and face eternal damnation. It's about as close to a human right as you could find in that age. Every lawyer at the constitutional convention would have been well aware of it, as at that time there weren't too many such unequivocal rights. See, e.g., http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstracts/5090120chap1_abs.pdf http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstract... The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments were basically lifted directly from established English legislative and common law. That Americans were regularly denied the benefit of these laws was one of the primary grievances of the colonies, so they basically just copy+pasted them into the Bill of Rights. As for the 1st amendment, I'm sure you've noticed that it's worded in the negative, and that's because the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. States were free to oppress speech and enforce religious laws. And that they did, and few thought those states inherently oppressive. At the time it was thought that such laws restricting speech, enforcing a state religion, etc, if chosen democratically, were tolerable. Protection from the tyranny of the majority hadn't yet become the predominate way to understand these newly declared individual rights. Rather, what most concerned the convention members was that the federal government not have the power to interfere with the democratic balance struck at the state level. Nonetheless, the wording of various state constitutions make it clear that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc were considered as much an individual right as any other. It's useful to understand that our modern notion of free speech as one of our most inviolable rights is _very_ recent. Oddly, it's perhaps one of the most recent innovations in American constitutional law, succeeded only by criminal procedural rights like Miranda rights. Until circa 1930, when Brandeis and Holmes kicked-off a reconceptualization of free speech, the right to free speech was understood much as it's still understood in Europe--highly qualified and subject to reasonable, democratically chosen restrictions. Before the modern era, states regularly (and legally) jailed abolitionists, unionists, communists, and others, simply for speaking in public or passing out literature; and not because they lacked a license, but for the actual content of their speech.
deanCommie 9y ago
Free speech means that the GOVERNMENT can't put you in jail for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that every single web platform or private place is supposed to tolerate or let you practice your free speech.

Retra 9y ago

The ideal of free speech is not violated by twitter banning someone's account due to abusive behavior. It's violated when you apply military or police force to repress people. That's why it's in the constitution. That's why those constitutional restrictions apply to the government and not to private entities.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
What is Trump's abusive Twitter behavior?
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Explicit threats: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/911789314169823232 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/91178931416982323... Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480 https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    I don't think you know what "explicit" means.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      "explicit (adj): stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.
      - Domenic_S 9y ago
        Am I taking crazy pills? If he had said, "...then I'm going to order a nuclear strike", that would have been explicit. Saying "they won't be around much longer" is a veiled threat, the threat is implicit.
        kelnos 9y ago
        What's the point of this subthread? Whether or not that particular tweet embodies an explicit or implicit threat is irrelevant. Implicit threats clearly fall under the umbrella of "abusive Twitter behavior" as well.
        tree_of_item 9y ago
        The point is they said it was explicit, but it wasn't.
        kelnos 9y ago
        So the purpose of this thread is to enforce pedantry and ignore the actual point of the discussion. Got it.
      - tree_of_item 9y ago
        Yeah, sorry, but that tweet is an implicit threat. What does he mean by "won't be around much longer"? The fact that you can even ask that question means it's implicit.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    You’re bothered by the leader of the US applying military leverage against our enemies? That’s literally his job. Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below: 1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations. 2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then. 3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but... 4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers. Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me. Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast. I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).
    - Retra 9y ago
      His job is to command the military over twitter?
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        No, he is trying to convince the North Korean regime that we are willing to use military force to achieve our objectives. Making statements to that effect to his domestic audience is part of convincing the North Koreans that we will actually do it. If they think he is bluffing, then they won’t submit. This is basic diplomacy theory.
- Retra 9y ago
  I'm arguing that one can ban someone from twitter without violating the spirit of free speech. It's not really relevant to my point whether Trump's behavior is abusive or not on account of the fact that I'm not trying to make philosophical points which only apply to him. The idea that a twitter ban is somehow a violation of free speech is farcical. It'd make almost as much sense to say a 140 char limit is a violation of free speech, and in practice, it's probably worse than a ban.
detcader 9y ago
Is there precedent for that? As in has there been other leaders whose twitter accounts have been taken down in the past for ordering military/police forces to do things?
- frostburg 9y ago
  Other leaders realize that they aren't actually using the proper channels when giving 'orders' on Twitter and generally don't even attempt to do so, so probably no, Trump is uniquely unqualified.

shepardrtc 9y ago

So they should be required to keep his account up no matter what happens?

detcader 9y ago
What would be an example of something they should take his account down for that would otherwise be legal to post?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Domenic_S 9y ago
"No matter what happens" is a ridiculous condition, and I think you know that. However, from Twitter's about page: > Our mission: Give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers. Give everyone. Not give people I agree with, or people I think are good -- everyone. It's an admirable, worthwhile goal. Whether they'll stick to it or not....
marcoperaza 9y ago
That’s not what he said. If I say “Twitter should not ban shepardrtc”, I am not saying that Twitter should not ban you no matter what you do. As for Trump, there is certainly a case for treating his account differently. He is the President of the United States. These aren’t the musings of someone who doesn’t matter. They are the thoughts, intentions, and announcements of the most powerful man in the world. In the same way that Twitter wouldn’t censor horrifying but true news, they shouldn’t censor the President. Anything that the President tweets is news. Imagine if they banned him and he moved to another site. Would Twitter then ban people for reporting, on Twitter, what the President said?
- panic 9y ago
  I agree that they should treat his account differently, but in the other direction. The fact that his words matter so much means they should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

oaijdsfoaijsf 9y ago

Heh? It is also part of their political speech to keep or delete his account. That is an equally important aspect of the free speech right -- the option to allow one's property to be used for a certain type of speech, or not. Not saying I think they should or shouldn't, but you can't evaluate the free speech implications of their deleting his account while only considering his free speech rights. Theirs are equally important.

eksu 9y ago
Twitter and other social media networks should be seen as common carriers and not interfere with what people post. Twitter should be able to exercise their free speech on their own twitter account, not by censoring other users. It is ideal for social media to be common carriers the same way the net should be neutral.
- lobf 9y ago
  Why is that ideal? Social media censors dangerous / disruptive (to the community) shit all the time, which is appropriate IMO.

lmkg 9y ago

On the other hand, Twitter also has a right to free speech. They're perfectly within their rights to promote their own opinions or viewpoints. I would assume that also includes the right to selectively amplify the voices of other based on agreeing with their viewpoints. Because Twitter is a platform for the communication of others, they find themselves in an ironic situation: adhering to the principle of free speech means giving up, or at least severely restricting, their own ability to exercise that right. I think it would be noble of them to accept that restriction voluntarily, but it would be problematic if it were required of them.

marcoperaza 9y ago
You make it seem like you disagree with the person you’re replying to. But don’t you see? You agree with him. That exactly what he’s saying: what Twitter legally can do is different than what they should do.
- lmkg 9y ago
  It sounds like I'm disagreeing with the person because I'm disagreeing with the person. I don't think that what Twitter can do and what they should do are at variance, because I don't think Twitter has a moral obligation to allow others freedom of expression on their tool. Even if Twitter wanted to promote freedom of expression, there's an inherent contradiction between allowing others to express their opinion and them expressing their own opinion. I think someone whose promotion of freedom of expression involves denying themselves that same freedom is sending a mixed message. Because their support of the principle would have those reservations, they don't have an obligation to provide it.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    I don't really think you're disagreeing. If Twitter wants to promote free expression, which I would think of as supporting the ideal of free speech, then they shouldn't ban Trump. If Twitter wants to ban Trump then they are in conflict with the ideal of free speech, or in your terms they aren't promoting freedom of expression by banning Trump. Twitter has claimed in their own promotional material to support free expression, so it may be a bit disingenuous for you to suggest they may not want to promote free expression.

JH0nl0ShaGv5KSn 9y ago

> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech. Even the "ideal" of free speech refers only to speech on public property outside of the control an organization. There is no ideal of free speech that says a) you should be able to say whatever you want on private property, or b) that organizations should sanction members for speech they do not approve of. Twitter is well within the ideal of free speech should they choose to kick Donald Trump off their site, on the grounds of a) not liking what he uses their private property to say, and b) wanting to sanction him as a member (i.e. user) of their organization for what he says. Of course, the ideal of free speech and what's written in the constitution are synonymous, as far as the American ideal of free speech is concerned. Different nations have different ideals.

will4274 9y ago
Twitter's brand is being public. As far as I can tell, Twitter survives on a revolving cycle of celebrity and news coverage. They almost went broke until the world's biggest celebrity (POTUS) brought their popularity back. So when people express outrage about Twitter restricting speech, it's the same emotion as RadioShack selling their customer list - not as advertised.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
No, the ideal of free speech is that you should get to express yourself, and I should get to express myself. Through discussion we may gain common understanding and benefit. We can discover unfamiliar perspectives, debate ideas, and figure out meaningful truths. We both will also appreciate the opportunity to have our thoughts heard - whatever they may be. Stopping speech because you dislike the speaker, or disagree with what's being said is the antithesis of this ideal. Again, of course Twitter legally could ban Trump. Doing so would not be in keeping with the ideal of free speech.

rdtsc 9y ago

Yeah but it's their infrastructure, servers, their policy, their rules. As a company they might not give a crap about the ideal of free speech. Especially if they don't have any competitors in the market. They might bear the consequence of applying their rules or squashing some speech and not other, by people deleting their accounts, or press writing mean things about them. But they are free to make that trade-off. The Constitution while talking about ideal, talked about them in the context of the relationship between the government and its people. It was mostly about protecting the people from the government.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
Sure. If they don't care about free speech, that's their prerogative. I'm saying you can be critical of Twitter on that basis, and it would be no defense against criticism to observe that they aren't legally required to care about free speech.

Joeboy 9y ago

> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Also for almost everyone on Earth it's not "in the constitution" because we don't live in the US.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
And yet, free speech is still important even to those who don't have such protections codified into law.

mst 9y ago

> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Currently basically facedesking at never coming up with this phrasing of it myself. Filed under "good enough that it's obvious as soon as you've seen it". Thank you.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Bud 9y ago

No, they would not be violating any "ideal of free speech", and if you think this, you still haven't understood what First Amendment rights are actually about.

throwaway613834 9y ago

> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Actually it's in the Constitution because it's important for a different reason than most people think. If you read the Bill of Rights carefully (and I mean thinking about the reasons behind them and their implications and interpretations over time, beyond what you see in school) you gradually come to realize that they were not meant to be declarations of your rights at all. (This is very much in contrast to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is such a thing.) Rather, they have been very much intended to be protections against the government, i.e. limitations on what the government can do. This is not obvious, and it has nontrivial implications. The 5th amendment is the clearest example of this, but this theme goes across all the amendments. The "right against self-incrimination" is not actually declaring a fundamental right. Ever think about why there would there be such a right? It's surely not the kind of thing I'd think of when writing a Constitution, and the same is probably true for you. Furthermore, if it's a right, then why does it go away once you are given immunity? And why doesn't it exist for other people (even those in your own family)? The reason that right exists is that they wanted to protect against torture, which was used to extract forced confessions, and they decided to grant this right to reach that goal. Otherwise, they did not by any means believe that it would be somehow wrong for a judge to compel you to produce testimony. That's why the right is so limited: it doesn't apply to testifying against other people, nor does it apply to yourself once you have immunity. Yet most people don't realize this and think it's there because it's somehow deemed to be a human right. The same goes for the freedoms of speech, press, association, and the right to bear arms, etc... those are, again, meant to protect against common practices of oppressive governments. They are not declarations of intrinsic human rights. It's probably a somewhat radical departure from what you've learned, but I think it's worth realizing this. In particular, it implies even more strongly that the right to free speech was NOT imagined to be something that anyone but the government should worry about.

wahern 9y ago
The right against self-incrimination enshrines a personal right that developed under English Common Law in response to Star Chamber inquisitions. It's not about oppressive governments, per se, but rather a belief that it's immoral to put someone under oath (to God) and pit himself against himself--tell the truth and face death, or lie and face eternal damnation. It's about as close to a human right as you could find in that age. Every lawyer at the constitutional convention would have been well aware of it, as at that time there weren't too many such unequivocal rights. See, e.g., http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstracts/5090120chap1_abs.pdf http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstract... The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments were basically lifted directly from established English legislative and common law. That Americans were regularly denied the benefit of these laws was one of the primary grievances of the colonies, so they basically just copy+pasted them into the Bill of Rights. As for the 1st amendment, I'm sure you've noticed that it's worded in the negative, and that's because the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. States were free to oppress speech and enforce religious laws. And that they did, and few thought those states inherently oppressive. At the time it was thought that such laws restricting speech, enforcing a state religion, etc, if chosen democratically, were tolerable. Protection from the tyranny of the majority hadn't yet become the predominate way to understand these newly declared individual rights. Rather, what most concerned the convention members was that the federal government not have the power to interfere with the democratic balance struck at the state level. Nonetheless, the wording of various state constitutions make it clear that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc were considered as much an individual right as any other. It's useful to understand that our modern notion of free speech as one of our most inviolable rights is _very_ recent. Oddly, it's perhaps one of the most recent innovations in American constitutional law, succeeded only by criminal procedural rights like Miranda rights. Until circa 1930, when Brandeis and Holmes kicked-off a reconceptualization of free speech, the right to free speech was understood much as it's still understood in Europe--highly qualified and subject to reasonable, democratically chosen restrictions. Before the modern era, states regularly (and legally) jailed abolitionists, unionists, communists, and others, simply for speaking in public or passing out literature; and not because they lacked a license, but for the actual content of their speech.

deanCommie 9y ago

Free speech means that the GOVERNMENT can't put you in jail for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that every single web platform or private place is supposed to tolerate or let you practice your free speech.