3 ms·

> The right of free speech doesn't mean that private corporations have to be a platform for it. Free Speech is a principle that the First Amendment applies whe

> The right of free speech doesn't mean that private corporations have to be a platform for it. Free Speech is a principle that the First Amendment applies when restricting government. Private corporations that decide to be a platform for public speech (I think publicly accessible social media posts count) have to consider how they promote free speech. If, on the other hand, the private corporations want to exercise their freedom of association and take clear editorial positions, that's fine too. But, philosophically, they can't have it both ways. Also note that Google, Facebook, and Apple seemed to have coordinated the ban. Both in size and in style, this is a different beast than Masterpiece. Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YouTube videos more than banning entire channels. * I think it's fine to boot Alex Jones on the merits, for the record. Though the level of coordination among the BigCos here is concerning.

scarface74 8y ago
Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YoyTube videos more than banning entire channels. YouTube hosts videos. Apple doesn’t host podcast. Apple didn’t feel “compelled” to scrape Alex Jones podcast.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  Well, the analogy to Masterpiece is that Apple is not compelled to list any given podcast. And, applying the Masterpiece ruling narrowly, Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions. But that's all legal reasoning. The original point is that people should be allowed to speak and the best response is better speech, not censorship, even if the censorship is private. And Apple is the least interesting of the bunch since they're not really a microblog platform or social network. The coordination with the other platforms is probably the only concern there.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
    You're aware of how Masterpiece was ruled, correct? It seems that you're implying that Masterpiece was found to be acting in accordance to the law, but that's not what the ruling was based on or addressed at all. The Supreme Court found that Colorado didn't give enough respect or credence to the owner's religious beliefs. The owner's religious beliefs being openly mocked by a Colorado Civil Rights Board member was used as an example. The board was found to not have worked under the assumption of religious neutrality. For those reasons, the case was found in his favor. The Supreme Court did not at all rule on whether or not it was legal for Masterpiece Cakeshop to deny his gay patrons the cake they wanted. They made no decision on whether it was within the owner's first amendment rights to deny service, or if what happened was denial of service. Hope this helps.
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      I said as much: > ...Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions. I was just pointing out that the facts of the case didn't involve a persona non grata. It was about compelling someone to create something (speech?), not about businesses' right to choose their clientele.

scarface74 8y ago

Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YoyTube videos more than banning entire channels. YouTube hosts videos. Apple doesn’t host podcast. Apple didn’t feel “compelled” to scrape Alex Jones podcast.

humanrebar 8y ago
Well, the analogy to Masterpiece is that Apple is not compelled to list any given podcast. And, applying the Masterpiece ruling narrowly, Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions. But that's all legal reasoning. The original point is that people should be allowed to speak and the best response is better speech, not censorship, even if the censorship is private. And Apple is the least interesting of the bunch since they're not really a microblog platform or social network. The coordination with the other platforms is probably the only concern there.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  You're aware of how Masterpiece was ruled, correct? It seems that you're implying that Masterpiece was found to be acting in accordance to the law, but that's not what the ruling was based on or addressed at all. The Supreme Court found that Colorado didn't give enough respect or credence to the owner's religious beliefs. The owner's religious beliefs being openly mocked by a Colorado Civil Rights Board member was used as an example. The board was found to not have worked under the assumption of religious neutrality. For those reasons, the case was found in his favor. The Supreme Court did not at all rule on whether or not it was legal for Masterpiece Cakeshop to deny his gay patrons the cake they wanted. They made no decision on whether it was within the owner's first amendment rights to deny service, or if what happened was denial of service. Hope this helps.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    I said as much: > ...Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions. I was just pointing out that the facts of the case didn't involve a persona non grata. It was about compelling someone to create something (speech?), not about businesses' right to choose their clientele.