11 ms·
The phone company would be a better analogy, and they absolutely can cut off your service if you’re being a nuisance. The first ammendment says your government
by theclaw 8y ago
The phone company would be a better analogy, and they absolutely can cut off your service if you’re being a nuisance. The first ammendment says your government won’t pass laws against you saying stuff, it stops you from going to jail for the things you say, and it’s there to protect the people’s right to criticise the government.
It is not there to force companies to serve you if they don’t want to.
- Ajedi32 8y agoOkay, so sticking with that analogy, can your phone company cut off your service if you're making racist comments or discussing unpopular political ideas with your friends over the phone? Or, perhaps more importantly, _should_ they be able to?
- xfer 8y agoPhone conversations are private.
- stale2002 8y agoAnd what if they weren't? Would you have a problem with a phone company listening into your conversations and determining if you said something bad or not?
- aliakhtar 8y agoIf you broke the law by saying something, yes. Incitement to violence is not protected free speech.
- computerfriend 8y agoThat's not quite the definition. But suppose some piece of speech is not protected: that doesn't necessarily make it illegal, just that it is legal for the state to censor you.
- stale2002 8y agoThis isn't about illegal speech. This is about perfectly legal speech that does not fall under the definition of incitement. We have the police for handling illegal incitement to violence.
- jewelthief91 8y agoWhat makes them private? They're operated on the phone company's lines and by talking on their lines you're compelling them to carry certain speech. The logic that states private communication carriers have an unlimited right to ban what they want to on their networks leads to the conclusion that "private" phone calls can be censored.
- xfer 8y ago> What makes them private? The law. Wire-tapping isn't legal.
- dsfafsdaf 8y agoYes it is. I mean, there's a law against it. But there is a lot of known warrent-less wire-tapping, both by govt and industry, and everyone shrugs. And it's not even a de jure vs de facto thing, since by now a lot of the ostensibly illegal stuff has been either defended successfully in courts or buttressed by the govt.
- jewelthief91 8y agoIt isn't wire-tapping if they block you from accessing the wire to begin with. Forcing the phone companies to carry your speech over their wires is compelling speech across their property which should be against their 1A rights if you're correct. However, it clearly has been ruled not to violate their rights.
- gameswithgo 8y agoPlease quit calling "exterminating the jews" an unpopular political opinion.
- Vinnl 8y agoI think the term makes sense, because that's what it is, and that's the reason why people want to shut it down. It also brings into focus the main point of: where do you draw the line? When is a political opinion unpopular enough to warrant shutting it down?
- aliakhtar 8y agoThe difference is incitement to violence.
- computerfriend 8y agoBut that's not really the difference, since there is plenty of incitement to violence that is politically palatable.