3 ms·

You’re drawing a false equivalency. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores. It’s a sp

You’re drawing a false equivalency. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores. It’s a space where free speech should be defended. Because free speech protects our society from authoritarianism and violence. It’s authoritarians who want to limit free speech, because their ideas have no merit and can only be enforced by violence.

naasking 9y ago
> It’s authoritarians who want to limit free speech, because their ideas have no merit and can only be enforced by violence. Let's not be disingenuous: democracies also want to limit the speech of authoritarians. And they probably should, because every idea that's broadcast will garner some following. It's human nature. Your knife doesn't only cut one way.
- lmm 9y ago
  Good people want to limit the speech of bad people in principle, sure, just as good people would endorse violence if there were a way to ensure it were directed only against bad people. But no-one can fairly judge that, so limiting speech is a bad idea in the same way that permitting violence is a bad idea. The marketplace of ideas works slowly, but it does work: it does, ultimately, find the truth; good ideas succeed while bad ideas die out. Whereas the "marketplace" of violence can't tell whether an idea is good or bad, and while the violent people might be on the side of good for now, there's no reliable way to keep it that way.
fao_ 9y ago
> Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores. Are they? Let's see the most important difference: Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council. Is a restaurant privately owned? Yes. The proprietor has the option to evict people at will, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities in the process. Do hate speech laws apply in a public place? Yes. If someone states racist things in public, they may be put in prison for hate speech. Do hate speech laws apply in a private place? It depends on if this space is open to the public, and on the event being held. Generally, yes. Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a public square? It depends. If the person is being harmful towards others, they may be removed from the square and detained, and sometimes even charged a crime. Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a private square? Yes, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities when doing so. As you can see, the attribute you have brought up does not matter. Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech, as long as it does not discriminate against minorities in the process.
- lmm 9y ago
  > Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council. Many public squares are privately owned these days. > Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech No-one is disputing that. Grandparent wrote "It’s a space where free speech should be defended," not "It's a space where free speech is protected by the law." The lack of legal protection for speech in this kind of space makes it all the more important that individuals stand up for it.

naasking 9y ago

> It’s authoritarians who want to limit free speech, because their ideas have no merit and can only be enforced by violence. Let's not be disingenuous: democracies also want to limit the speech of authoritarians. And they probably should, because every idea that's broadcast will garner some following. It's human nature. Your knife doesn't only cut one way.

lmm 9y ago
Good people want to limit the speech of bad people in principle, sure, just as good people would endorse violence if there were a way to ensure it were directed only against bad people. But no-one can fairly judge that, so limiting speech is a bad idea in the same way that permitting violence is a bad idea. The marketplace of ideas works slowly, but it does work: it does, ultimately, find the truth; good ideas succeed while bad ideas die out. Whereas the "marketplace" of violence can't tell whether an idea is good or bad, and while the violent people might be on the side of good for now, there's no reliable way to keep it that way.

fao_ 9y ago

> Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are more like a public squares rather than restaurants or stores. Are they? Let's see the most important difference: Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council. Is a restaurant privately owned? Yes. The proprietor has the option to evict people at will, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities in the process. Do hate speech laws apply in a public place? Yes. If someone states racist things in public, they may be put in prison for hate speech. Do hate speech laws apply in a private place? It depends on if this space is open to the public, and on the event being held. Generally, yes. Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a public square? It depends. If the person is being harmful towards others, they may be removed from the square and detained, and sometimes even charged a crime. Is the owner allowed to evict any member at will from a private square? Yes, as long as they do not discriminate against minorities when doing so. As you can see, the attribute you have brought up does not matter. Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech, as long as it does not discriminate against minorities in the process.

lmm 9y ago
> Is a public square privately owned? No. It is owned by the community, usually the council. Many public squares are privately owned these days. > Facebook has the legal right to remove people for speech No-one is disputing that. Grandparent wrote "It’s a space where free speech should be defended," not "It's a space where free speech is protected by the law." The lack of legal protection for speech in this kind of space makes it all the more important that individuals stand up for it.