2 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoYes 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.