3 ms·

The first amendment does not prevent Google (or any other company) from restricting speech. That is a very low bar. The distinction between government and priv

The first amendment does not prevent Google (or any other company) from restricting speech. That is a very low bar. The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments? The FCC cannot revoke your spectrum license for saying Obama shot JFK. Should ISPs be able to revoke your internet license for saying that? Google is a much harder case, because the core service they provide is filtering; and that filtering is an immensely valuable public service. But given the role that filtering plays in society, is is not an area that should be left unregulated.

rsj_hn 8y ago
That's a bit of a strawman, since the OP didn't talk about the first amendment but about "free speech". Free Speech is a principle coming from the enlightenment of which the first amendment is one expression, but certainly not the only expression. The idea is that speech should be tolerated even if you disagree with it, and that societies that make room for controversial speech are better off, in the long run, than societies that do not. As a corollary, it espouses the view that individuals should be free to speak their mind and should be tolerated even if their speech is controversial. Because we cherish Free Speech, we created the first amendment. The first amendment is not the sum total of free speech, nor is free speech merely a governmental issue. For example, the California labor protections that protect employees from being fired for what they say in their private time is an example of the principle of free speech at work, and has nothing to do with the first amendment. The principle of free speech is why there are many processes, both private and public, in which the public is invited for individuals to air their views, whether they be question and answer sessions in companies, or local government hearings. It's also the principle behind movements to build public libraries that stock controversial books. Almost every institution, whether public or private, tries to give some room for dissenting speech in its operations and tries to create a space for people to air their views. Thus the attacks on these spaces, even if they are not attacks on the first amendment, are of concern to those of us who value free speech. This includes opposition to efforts at censorship, both public and private, whether these be the circulation of blacklists of communists during the cold war, or any other kind of punishment, both public and private, merely for speech. You may not agree with these values, but merely saying "well, the first amendment doesn't prohibit it, so it's not an attack on free speech" is a wild misunderstanding of what free speech is.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. As far as I am aware, the US does not have any substantial free speech protection other then the first amendment, so it does not make sense to say that "free speech" guarantees us anything beyond what the first amendment does. The arguement that my parent was making is that Google can deny you use of their platform without violating your free speech. In my view, the only way that makes sense is if you interpret free speech as narrowly defined by the first amendment. Otherwise, to be denied Google seems to be clearly denied free speech.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Yes but. It seems to me that forcing somebody to say what you want them to say is a much larger infringement on free speech than preventing them from speaking. Who should be telling Google, or anybody else for that matter, what they have to say? I have heard people suggest that Twitter, Facebook, or Google de-platforming people is an abrogation of free speech, but it seem to me that it would be a worse abrogation if you didn't allow them to do that. Should we pass laws to force the New York Times to print certain articles? That would seem a worse outcome for free speech than what we have now.
adamrezich 8y ago
>The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments? I hope this view becomes more mainstream soon. Regardless of outcome, it's something that people need to consciously think about.
3rwww1 8y ago
> The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments? Just after his Senate hearings, Mark Zuckerberg made some statements about preventing further election interference (obviously), and then went on talking about implementing new content-filtering policies within Facebook such as "community driven governance", an "appeal process" and even a "supreme court" and some sort of "due process" (Paris Vivatech 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp0BnrHn6cA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp0BnrHn6cA around 34:40) Zuckerberg and his peers are not elected individual, they cannot be removed from office, etc. While not disputing his intentions, using tools traditionaly used within democracies doesn't make up for a democratic process. Substituting laws by terms & conditions, courts by a privately-owned justice system, is a slippery slope to say the least.
JohnBooty 8y ago
The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments? Absolutely agree that companies, particularly companies with large market share, can effectively wield state-level powers and that it is something we need to figure out as a country. In this case we're talking about Google's all-hands discussion about weeding out bad-faith actors. They weren't trying to silence people who simply thought Trump was the better candidate, they were talking about something very close to spam filtering. "Silence Republicans" is something that (even as a liberal) is something I'd be absolutely opposed to; filtering out outright fraudulent news sources (from any part of the political spectrum) is something we should all support. We've been doing something similar as a country for many years. Notice how tabloids like the National Enquirer aren't typically lumped in with "real" news sources at the newsstand.

rsj_hn 8y ago

That's a bit of a strawman, since the OP didn't talk about the first amendment but about "free speech". Free Speech is a principle coming from the enlightenment of which the first amendment is one expression, but certainly not the only expression. The idea is that speech should be tolerated even if you disagree with it, and that societies that make room for controversial speech are better off, in the long run, than societies that do not. As a corollary, it espouses the view that individuals should be free to speak their mind and should be tolerated even if their speech is controversial. Because we cherish Free Speech, we created the first amendment. The first amendment is not the sum total of free speech, nor is free speech merely a governmental issue. For example, the California labor protections that protect employees from being fired for what they say in their private time is an example of the principle of free speech at work, and has nothing to do with the first amendment. The principle of free speech is why there are many processes, both private and public, in which the public is invited for individuals to air their views, whether they be question and answer sessions in companies, or local government hearings. It's also the principle behind movements to build public libraries that stock controversial books. Almost every institution, whether public or private, tries to give some room for dissenting speech in its operations and tries to create a space for people to air their views. Thus the attacks on these spaces, even if they are not attacks on the first amendment, are of concern to those of us who value free speech. This includes opposition to efforts at censorship, both public and private, whether these be the circulation of blacklists of communists during the cold war, or any other kind of punishment, both public and private, merely for speech. You may not agree with these values, but merely saying "well, the first amendment doesn't prohibit it, so it's not an attack on free speech" is a wild misunderstanding of what free speech is.

gizmo686 8y ago
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. As far as I am aware, the US does not have any substantial free speech protection other then the first amendment, so it does not make sense to say that "free speech" guarantees us anything beyond what the first amendment does. The arguement that my parent was making is that Google can deny you use of their platform without violating your free speech. In my view, the only way that makes sense is if you interpret free speech as narrowly defined by the first amendment. Otherwise, to be denied Google seems to be clearly denied free speech.
amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Yes but. It seems to me that forcing somebody to say what you want them to say is a much larger infringement on free speech than preventing them from speaking. Who should be telling Google, or anybody else for that matter, what they have to say? I have heard people suggest that Twitter, Facebook, or Google de-platforming people is an abrogation of free speech, but it seem to me that it would be a worse abrogation if you didn't allow them to do that. Should we pass laws to force the New York Times to print certain articles? That would seem a worse outcome for free speech than what we have now.

adamrezich 8y ago

3rwww1 8y ago

> The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments? Just after his Senate hearings, Mark Zuckerberg made some statements about preventing further election interference (obviously), and then went on talking about implementing new content-filtering policies within Facebook such as "community driven governance", an "appeal process" and even a "supreme court" and some sort of "due process" (Paris Vivatech 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp0BnrHn6cA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp0BnrHn6cA around 34:40) Zuckerberg and his peers are not elected individual, they cannot be removed from office, etc. While not disputing his intentions, using tools traditionaly used within democracies doesn't make up for a democratic process. Substituting laws by terms & conditions, courts by a privately-owned justice system, is a slippery slope to say the least.

JohnBooty 8y ago

The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments? Absolutely agree that companies, particularly companies with large market share, can effectively wield state-level powers and that it is something we need to figure out as a country. In this case we're talking about Google's all-hands discussion about weeding out bad-faith actors. They weren't trying to silence people who simply thought Trump was the better candidate, they were talking about something very close to spam filtering. "Silence Republicans" is something that (even as a liberal) is something I'd be absolutely opposed to; filtering out outright fraudulent news sources (from any part of the political spectrum) is something we should all support. We've been doing something similar as a country for many years. Notice how tabloids like the National Enquirer aren't typically lumped in with "real" news sources at the newsstand.