3 ms·

No, there doesn't need to be an minimum reasonableness to speech for it to be protected. The ravings of a lunatic are and should be protected. The issue of wh

No, there doesn't need to be an minimum reasonableness to speech for it to be protected. The ravings of a lunatic are and should be protected. The issue of where to draw the line between speech/persuasion/debate and harassment/threats/shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre is an important thorny one, but it is completely separate from the quality or reasonableness of legitimacy of the speech. I don't know anything about the facts of the case at hand. I am responding to the argument, made above and many place in this thread, that the only sorts of protections on free speech are legal ones, and that in particular they don't apply to legal actions taken individuals or private organizations.

rbanffy 8y ago
It's not like Apple is deleting his media. Apple is deleting the pointers, as they don't want to be associated with him (which is perfectly reasonable - I wouldn't want that either). His right to free speech is not infringed. He is still free to host the RSS feed and the media files however he sees fit.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  We all acknowledge that it's a violation of the first amendment if the government simply makes it hard to access speech even if it's still technically available. The government can't order Google to stop indexing your website even if they allow your website to remain online. Plenty of people here have argued for the gravely mistaken position that free speech protections should only apply to the government, but I've never heard anyone argue that private individuals and organizations are morally bound to protect free speech in certain circumstances but this only applies if they are completely wiping out the speech rather than just making it difficult to access. I don't understand why that would be the case.
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    The key word in your argument is 'morally'. What's moral is fluid and varies from person to person. I think it's perfectly legitimate to suppress free speech locally when you protect it globally - for example, in the case of hate speech that demands free speech of certain groups to be globally suppressed.
  - 8note 8y ago
    wouldn't it infringe on Apple's free speech to force them to keep the pointers? they're making a political statement by removing them

rbanffy 8y ago

It's not like Apple is deleting his media. Apple is deleting the pointers, as they don't want to be associated with him (which is perfectly reasonable - I wouldn't want that either). His right to free speech is not infringed. He is still free to host the RSS feed and the media files however he sees fit.

jessriedel 8y ago
We all acknowledge that it's a violation of the first amendment if the government simply makes it hard to access speech even if it's still technically available. The government can't order Google to stop indexing your website even if they allow your website to remain online. Plenty of people here have argued for the gravely mistaken position that free speech protections should only apply to the government, but I've never heard anyone argue that private individuals and organizations are morally bound to protect free speech in certain circumstances but this only applies if they are completely wiping out the speech rather than just making it difficult to access. I don't understand why that would be the case.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  The key word in your argument is 'morally'. What's moral is fluid and varies from person to person. I think it's perfectly legitimate to suppress free speech locally when you protect it globally - for example, in the case of hate speech that demands free speech of certain groups to be globally suppressed.
- 8note 8y ago
  wouldn't it infringe on Apple's free speech to force them to keep the pointers? they're making a political statement by removing them