4 ms·

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them. No. Free speech refers to protection from the

by dfxm12 9y ago

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them. No. Free speech refers to protection from the government censoring or jailing for speech they don't want said. If you're relying on a private company, especially one who retains the rights to take down your video at any time for any reason, to disseminate your speech and you're worried about them doing something with that speech, you're speaking wrong. I know you mention lawmakers are "pressuring" them to make this change, and if that's true, then yes, this would encroach on our freedom of speech. However, I'm having a hard time finding anything that backs up that claim, and "pressuring" is still very different from a government outright telling YT what may or may not be on the platform.

programmarchy 9y ago
The US Supreme Court has a different opinion. They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1] > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....
- dfxm12 9y ago
  As the link you provided states, this decision applies to shopping centers in California, whose state supreme court has narrowed its applicability a few times over the years. This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.
  - programmarchy 9y ago
    It’s easier to argue that YouTube, Twitter, etc. are public forums. So it seems to me that the argument would be even stronger.
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.
      - programmarchy 9y ago
        Read the appeals cases. They curtailed spaces like Costco parking lots and strip malls without plazas or atriums, which are different than "common areas". Free speech in common areas was reaffirmed in 2012. YouTube is clearly a common area.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > YouTube is clearly a common area. YouTube isn't even an area, much less a common area. (Not to mention that the “common area” thing is not a federal Constitutional requirement but a judicial application of the positive rights in the California Constitution; it is not a First Amendment right.) It's a publication in which user submissions that Google accepts will be published, possibly accompanied by ads from which revenue is shared with the submitter.
        programmarchy 9y ago
        This is a weak argument, nitpicking semantics. Virtual spaces are protected, too. [1] Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment. Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement: > Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. > We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities. > We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular. [1] First Amendment Architecture, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)
tortasaur 9y ago
You are describing the First Amendment, not the concept of free speech.
a_tractor 9y ago
Reddit can easily be considered a "quasi-public palce" http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation20.html#3 http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation20.html...: >In Marsh v. Alabama, the Court held that the private owner of a company town could not forbid distribution of religious materials by a Jehovah's Witness on a street in the town's business district. The town, wholly owned by a private corporation, had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside from its ownership, and was functionally like any other town. In those circumstances, the Court reasoned, 'the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.'' Which was later refined: >Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza... Henceforth, only when private property has taken on all the attributes of a town' is it to be treated as a public forum The first case, which set the precedent, involved the distribution of written materials in a "company town," the second case created a stipulation that prevented the law from applying in strip mall shopping centers. Basically, the case can be made that Reddit, for its own advantage, has opened itself up to the public to as a public forum to as great of an extent as possible. It obviously is never going to carry "all the attributes of a town" but I feel to see why that is the only way "to be treated as a public forum."
phil21 9y ago
This is a tired argument. Pretty much everyone knows the legal definition of free speech, pointing it out isn't doing anyone a service on HN. Free speech is not simply a law. It's a concept society must both value and uphold, or it is a right only the popular and powerful have. If I can't even speak up outside work about my unpopular political beliefs without the economic death penalty - do we really have free speech? I'd argue not really. I don't care too much that the government can't jail me for it - that's a pretty low bar. While I do agree Youtube has the right to ban whatever they like on their platform, I don't have to think it's a good thing for society - and I will absolutely continue to call these things an erosion of my free speech in society. Without citizens that vehemently uphold free speech policies, the entire concept folds as soon as we start carving out ever-longer lists of exceptions of those who do not have it.

by dfxm12 9y ago

programmarchy 9y ago

The US Supreme Court has a different opinion. They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1] > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

dfxm12 9y ago
As the link you provided states, this decision applies to shopping centers in California, whose state supreme court has narrowed its applicability a few times over the years. This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.
- programmarchy 9y ago
  It’s easier to argue that YouTube, Twitter, etc. are public forums. So it seems to me that the argument would be even stronger.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.
    - programmarchy 9y ago
      Read the appeals cases. They curtailed spaces like Costco parking lots and strip malls without plazas or atriums, which are different than "common areas". Free speech in common areas was reaffirmed in 2012. YouTube is clearly a common area.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > YouTube is clearly a common area. YouTube isn't even an area, much less a common area. (Not to mention that the “common area” thing is not a federal Constitutional requirement but a judicial application of the positive rights in the California Constitution; it is not a First Amendment right.) It's a publication in which user submissions that Google accepts will be published, possibly accompanied by ads from which revenue is shared with the submitter.
        programmarchy 9y ago
        This is a weak argument, nitpicking semantics. Virtual spaces are protected, too. [1] Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment. Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement: > Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. > We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities. > We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular. [1] First Amendment Architecture, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125
dragonwriter 9y ago
> They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)

tortasaur 9y ago

You are describing the First Amendment, not the concept of free speech.

a_tractor 9y ago

Reddit can easily be considered a "quasi-public palce" http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation20.html#3 http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation20.html...: >In Marsh v. Alabama, the Court held that the private owner of a company town could not forbid distribution of religious materials by a Jehovah's Witness on a street in the town's business district. The town, wholly owned by a private corporation, had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside from its ownership, and was functionally like any other town. In those circumstances, the Court reasoned, 'the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.'' Which was later refined: >Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza... Henceforth, only when private property has taken on all the attributes of a town' is it to be treated as a public forum The first case, which set the precedent, involved the distribution of written materials in a "company town," the second case created a stipulation that prevented the law from applying in strip mall shopping centers. Basically, the case can be made that Reddit, for its own advantage, has opened itself up to the public to as a public forum to as great of an extent as possible. It obviously is never going to carry "all the attributes of a town" but I feel to see why that is the only way "to be treated as a public forum."

phil21 9y ago

This is a tired argument. Pretty much everyone knows the legal definition of free speech, pointing it out isn't doing anyone a service on HN. Free speech is not simply a law. It's a concept society must both value and uphold, or it is a right only the popular and powerful have. If I can't even speak up outside work about my unpopular political beliefs without the economic death penalty - do we really have free speech? I'd argue not really. I don't care too much that the government can't jail me for it - that's a pretty low bar. While I do agree Youtube has the right to ban whatever they like on their platform, I don't have to think it's a good thing for society - and I will absolutely continue to call these things an erosion of my free speech in society. Without citizens that vehemently uphold free speech policies, the entire concept folds as soon as we start carving out ever-longer lists of exceptions of those who do not have it.