4 ms·

> Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If the comment section on your blog started to comprise 80-90% of all the comments on

> Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If the comment section on your blog started to comprise 80-90% of all the comments on the Internet? Yeah, maybe it should, There's so much distance between your hypothetical and what YouTube, Facebook, et al are doing that it's not even a "slippery slope" argument. Maybe a "slippery Marianas Trench" argument.

colechristensen 9y ago
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Does Congress pass a bill declaring Facebook public? The rules can't be gut feeling, how do I tell the difference between a comment section that is a public place and one that isn't? If there are two types of things: A which is a public place and B which isn't, how do I sort into those two bins? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? The government isn't allowed to tell me I can't say something or to punish me for doing so (with the exceptions decided by SCOTUS). The first amendment doesn't mean my neighbors have to be my friends if I use obscene language at dinner parties. People seem to confuse the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act reached into much less public places and prevented certain behaviors. If YouTube was deleting videos because they were made by black people or Muslims or women, this would be a very different conversation. Religion, race, sex.... those are protected classes. Freedom of expression doesn't mean your opinions are a protected class. The law doesn't and won't reach that far into the behaviors of private entities. The first amendment protects you from the government, nothing else.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  > I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Well, one starting point would be looking at past examples of antitrust action. The AT&T and Standard Oil cases might be instructive. > What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the First Amendment. I think they should either be declared a common carrier (and thus required to serve all without discrimination) or (conversely) they should have their DMCA safe harbor privileges revoked.
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    >required to serve all without discrimination "discrimination" legally is about protected classes, and like I said expressed opinions aren't protected classes. Do you take 'required to serve all' as services without moderation? I don't really want to be surrounded by opinion anarchy.

colechristensen 9y ago

I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Does Congress pass a bill declaring Facebook public? The rules can't be gut feeling, how do I tell the difference between a comment section that is a public place and one that isn't? If there are two types of things: A which is a public place and B which isn't, how do I sort into those two bins? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? The government isn't allowed to tell me I can't say something or to punish me for doing so (with the exceptions decided by SCOTUS). The first amendment doesn't mean my neighbors have to be my friends if I use obscene language at dinner parties. People seem to confuse the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act reached into much less public places and prevented certain behaviors. If YouTube was deleting videos because they were made by black people or Muslims or women, this would be a very different conversation. Religion, race, sex.... those are protected classes. Freedom of expression doesn't mean your opinions are a protected class. The law doesn't and won't reach that far into the behaviors of private entities. The first amendment protects you from the government, nothing else.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
> I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line. Well, one starting point would be looking at past examples of antitrust action. The AT&T and Standard Oil cases might be instructive. > What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos? It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the First Amendment. I think they should either be declared a common carrier (and thus required to serve all without discrimination) or (conversely) they should have their DMCA safe harbor privileges revoked.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  >required to serve all without discrimination "discrimination" legally is about protected classes, and like I said expressed opinions aren't protected classes. Do you take 'required to serve all' as services without moderation? I don't really want to be surrounded by opinion anarchy.